On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Gassler Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with much of what Judith Curry is saying. > > Einstein is not a good example, however. He had a doctorate in physics from > the University of Zurich, so he was not an outsider. (Bjorn whozits OTOH, is > a political scientist, and Lou Dobbs...) > > BTW, it was the patent office, not the post office. > > He was also a theorist, not an empirical scientist. More difficult to do, but > at least he did not depend on the availability of data from others, like > climate scientists and most economists. > > Otherwise, I find this whole discussion disturbing. I am going to investigate > and perhaps rewrite some of my lectures.
OK, but the whole "not revealing data" thing is part of a larger IP problem. That is the whole artificial creation of intellectual property has huge implications for scientific work. In this case much of the data climate scientists use is the intellectual property of somebody, which means they gain access to it on condition they keep it confidential. That is a fairly serious problem, but it is not limited to climate science. And fortunately much of the modeling is based on public data, including everything that NASA does. I will note that critics of AGW have yet to generate any valid public criticism based on the public data they have access to. The lab broken into bases their research on 98% public data, and 2% purchased data they are legally obliged to keep confidential. If you wish,discard all the work they have done and stick to the work done by other labs. You won't find substantially different results. I don't think their work is discredited, but if you do there is plenty out there not "contaminated". _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
