User voted Yes, only a bit.
5 votes
Jul 27, 2015

In good science, you publish everything. If your theory, assumptions, data, data collection, models, code, etc is good then you wait and see if anyone can shoot it down. If they can't then odds are your theory is good.

Using the standard of good science let's look at AGW (anthropogenic global warming) climate change, global warming or whatever they are calling it now.

Do we know how the data was collected? In many cases no.
Is the data accessible to everyone? No.
Can CRU show it's data, how it was collected, or how it was combined? No.
Has the government checked the weather station to see if they meet the standards, no. In fact when other people have checked they have found most of them out of compliance in some form.
Does the IPCC use only peer reviewed data. No.
Does the IPCC require contributors to release their data for review? No.
Does the IPCC published math work out? No. Using CO2 alone we should be 5 degrees warming and that if you ignore all the other greenhouse gasses.
Did the CRU stop using some tree ring data once it started to show a decline in the 1960s? Yes, they continued to use data before 1960, but stopped once it showed a decline, they called it the divergence problem. Given that we have less then 300 years of real temps. to compare with tree ring data, and that we have (some) tree ring data that doesn't match, doesn't that prove that at lease some tree ring data is unreliable? After all about 20% of the data doesn't match. So how does anyone know it hasn't happened in the past?
Can the models be set back more than a few hundred years and arrive at today's climate? No.

Now IF AGW is as bad as they say it is, it is criminal if they don't release everything. But as we have seen time and time again. If you don't agree, your life and or your job is threatened, you're called a denier.

Why is it that in every other case in science it's up to those proposing a theory to prove it, yet when it comes to AGW those proposing it don't? Why do the skeptics have to disprove it? That's not the way good science works.

If this as those pushing AGW have said settled science then why have they predicted the current conditions? Have had no real warming in over 10 years, for a settled science there are still a lot of questions they can't answer.

Reply to this opinion
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
Invite your friend via email:
Share it: