On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:55:59 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 10:42:30 UTC+1, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Reading it properly suggests good practice to some extent. It appears
that a number of people including scientists have queried the validity
of the data and an independent panel of technical experts have said that
overall it is sound but some aspects of quality control and statistical
analysis could have been done to a higher standard.
"BoM's technical advisory forum said ACORN-SAT was a complex and
well-maintained data set. Public submissions about BoM's work "do not
provide evidence or offer a justification for contesting the overall
need for homogenisation and the scientific integrity of the bureau's
climate records."

It's hard to explain sometimes that Science isn't about right or wrong -
a stance you two have taken here.
You try to end up with the most representative set of data which
involves justifiably eliminating some which appears as outlying. (There
will be all sorts of mathematical ways of deciding this). It would
appear here that this has not been done wellin some areas and
improvements are to be made. That seems to be reasonably transparent
although there should have perhaps been more internal peer reviewing of
the quality control and statistical methods. Unfortunately some
organisations and scientists aren't as good as each other, as in all
walks of life, but it doesn't mean there is a conspiracy I'm afraid.
Dave

Dave

I realise that for now many will think I'm part of a 'nutty' minority'......

......you said it larry.