jo4hn wrote:

Swingman wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

To all readers: look at that website anyway. Lots of information that
is quite understandable without a lot of science background.

Agreed ... damned trouble is it seems everyone has an agenda of some
sort, making any data, and any modeling using same, subject to suspicion.

All temperature data is massaged, supposedly to reduce error inherent in
historical readings, but I'm personally, and simply, at the point of not
trusting those doing the "massaging", and there is ample evidence to
back up that skepticism.

What should have been an age of enlightenment has demonstrably turned
into and age of skepticism and suspicion.

IOW, I've been right all along ... g

Massaging in science is removing wild points (or spikes), conversion
from data numbers to engineering/science values, applying instrument
calibration values, and the like. Fraud is very rare (Fox rants
notwithstanding), since it will be found out by ones peers.

Well, one case in point, if you feed a flat temperature reading into one
of CRU's models, it returns the infamous "Hockey Stick" result. i.e., it
massages data in a way that appears to have hardcoded in the researcher's
bias.

All of this bleating about peer reviews would be a lot more credible if
the peer review process had not been subverted. *That* is definitely shown
in the released e-mails. When the only peers who review your work are those
who agree with your conclusions, and the only papers accepted for peer
review in journals are those that agree with AGW, and when journals that
dare publish peer reviewed papers that don't agree with AGW are threatened
and coerced into stopping that behavior, one no longer has science. One has
dogma and religion. In this case, the collars and cassocks have been
replaced with white labcoats. Still religion with orthodoxy being strictly
enforced.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham