StatCounter

Wednesday 25 November 2009

The "Scientific Method" as not applied to Climate Change research at the CRU at UEA

Here's part of an email from someone at the CRU
"Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil"

Here is a flowchart for the "Scientific Method"...

Maybe someone could explain how "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …" fits in with "Analyze results - Draw Conclusion"...

Here are some extracts from Wikipedia's guide to the Scientific Method as a reminder to those of you who have forgotten their science O'levels:


"the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below."

"Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes."

"A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[33]

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again."



You can read far more about this matter and more at .

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Post makes no effort to clarify what was meant by the email. From the context I would suggest that what the scientist was saying was that he saw no reason why he should release data to someone who intended to MANUFACTURE something wrong with it.