The "three reviews" - all of which immediately rejected by tin-hat conspiracy wingnuts, have all concluded that "there was no mishandling of data." No intent to discriminate, slant data, hide information, or any other malfeasance of any sort. Period. Is that enough? Hell no, politicians are still trying to blast the scientists for not being "transparent enough," an argument that is patently bullshit. Even the article itself admits, and the critics admit, that ALL the data is publicly available. ANYONE on Earth could have compared the data and produced their own independent results.
The key word was COMPETENCE. "Anyone competent" could have obtained and analyzed the data. There we go. That's the heart of the problem. Politicians are NOT competent scientists, and they never will be.
This article continues on after this revelation, to vilify the scientists who were not "transparent enough" with freedom of information requests. The article fails to make note of the volume and frequency of FoiA requests that the CRU was subject to. It amounted to procedural terrorism. They were inundated with spurious, stupid, off-topic, irrelevant, and duplicate requests on an hourly basis from all around the World. I'd say that from all the evidence, they failed to respond only to a handful of the most noxious requests. So what failure rate is that, 1%? 5%?
That's not much of a glaring failure in the way that this article paints it. The media continues to play-up scare tactics and one-sided reporting as though it were professional journalism. Journalists should take note: You are not scientists either, not by quite a long measure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment