So tell me then, rpg, what does it mean when several independent researchers process the same data in independent ways and end up with very close results? That they are not exactly the same is expected, that they give us the same answer on warming trends, is significant.

That's what Phil Jones is talking about.

That someone like say, NASA, cannot EXACTLY reproduce the CRU result is not a major issue, if they can process even a different dataset and end up with essentially the same answer, that's what reproducibility really means.

Bugsy, I said only derived (gridded) data is available, I am correct and Jones confirms this.

Q100 Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?
Professor Jones: That is not the case.

Q105 Graham Stringer: He wanted the data, he wanted the codes, he wanted all the other
information and you refused to give it to him. Why?
Professor Jones: Because we had a lot of work and resources invested in it. That was way before the FOI requests started.

Q106 Graham Stringer: I am interested in why you have, both through the Freedom of Information Act requests and to Hughes and to other scientists, refused to give them the data.
Professor Jones: We have given them the gridded product so that we have not given them the raw station data but the product in grid boxes.

Q107 Graham Stringer: They cannot go back to the basics, as any scientists would want to, and say “Is this right?” You have denied them the right to check yours.
Professor Jones: We have made the gridded product available from the very beginning but not the raw station data. Most scientists do not want to deal with the raw station data, they would rather deal with a derived product.

Q109 Mr Boswell: What has not gone out, which has excited these allegations of undue withholding, and why did it not go out?
Professor Jones: It is the specific raw data that we used. We have always put out a gridded product and people can get to much the same raw data from other sites in the USA.

Jones admits the Met Office even now only has 80% of the raw data, seven countries have refused to release theirs (?) and the NZ (NIWA) data has no SOA’s. Because of this it will take years to reproduce or verify the CRU’s work.

Actually spindoc, only the gridded data is available from the CRU. The raw data can be gathered independently, if that is what is required. It is not really required, as the trends have been confirmed using much of the same data by several groups working independently.

On the issue of 'reproducibility', if I was working on, say, oxygen consumption in rats and produced a certain result that after administration of a particular drug, if you wanted to check my result, what would be the best way of doing this? Would you put in an FOI to get all the raw data reads and photocopies of all the lab books and spreadsheets to 'reproduce' the experiment? That is not reproduction, that is duplication of a calculation.

If you wanted to reproduce the experiment you would do it independently, preferably using your own rats. Since we are actually talking about global temperature data, much of the raw datasets would be similar of course, but they don't need to be exactly the same. That the trends were supported by completely different datasets (eg satellite measurements), means that the result was well verified. Much more so than just repeating a calculation. Asking someone for pretty much all of their data and procedures is not standard practice in science. In fact, in some circles it's downright rude. That you seem to think that because they didn't let every Tom, Tony and Harry at their life's work, just so every detail can picked apart on the internet, that it doesn't exist as a scientific result or isn't science, is only worthy of derision.

bugsy "So tell me then, rpg, what does it mean when several independent researchers process the same data in independent ways and end up with very close results?

That's what I'm asking .. what does it mean, when a "science" can produce different results from the same source data ..

So what have they produced bugsy ?

"That they are not exactly the same is expected, that they give us the same answer on warming trends, is significant." Who are these people who all got similar but not the same results?

Is that "good enough" for climate science is it - what crap you speak, that's not good enough at all and you know it, you're fudging along with the rest of them.

Is that what you reckon science is?

So which do we believe, or should we all wait till a set of results is produced for everyone ..

Come on, you haven't answered anything, just added to your own confusion, do you read what you post?

Jones produced rubbish, and could not release how he derived it as he made it up, all the reviews in the world will not change that.

He admitted destroying data .. end of story, he should be horsewhipped and run out of science on a rail - in fact he thought he would be when this all broke, he looked quite upset, but the chaps have all gathered around and made sure they don't have one of the chaps looking silly, or they all would - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck eh qanda, otherwise, why would anyone question it?

Qanda's argument is that climate scientists say they have decided the world is warming due to CO2 and if anyone disbelieves that they are ... (insert appropriate insult here) and are wrong, so there! No further correspondence entered into, (I wish!)

Qanda, just wishing away skeptics is not working is it, regardless of shrilly increasing insults and attempted bullying - you must be a joy around your office, (while you deliver the day's mail.)

Rpg is right Bugsy, not only do you not read what others contribute, you don’t even read what you contribute.

You write << Actually spindoc, only the gridded data is available from the CRU. The raw data can be gathered independently, if that is what is required. >>.

Only two lines above your opening response it says << Jones admits the Met Office even now only has 80% of the raw data, seven countries have refused to release theirs (?) and the NZ (NIWA) data has no SOA’s. Because of this it will take years to reproduce or verify the CRU’s work >>.

So yes, the raw data could be gathered independently, and yes, it would take years, and yes it most certainly is required. It is required because until and unless it is, AGW is dead and I doubt any politician in the whole world will legislate to support your view.

Your recovery from “Brussels Syndrome” will not be easy. This process, like all traumas, is denial, anger, acceptance, reconciliation and recovery. You are stuck in “denial” and that is not good for you.

Sorry Bugsy but you are way out of your depth on this.

No spindoc and rpg, it is you who are 'out of your depth' in scientific issues generally. If the AGW case solely relied in the CRU, you may (only may) have a point. But it doesn't. The CRU's conclusions have been supported by many groups working separately.

The trend for warming has been independently verified by many different organisations. To name some:

American:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
USA National Climate Data Centre
Global Climate Laboratory, National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, North Carolina.

Chinese:
Key Laboratory for Environmental Change and Natural Disaster Research, Institute of Resources Science, Beijing

Spanish:
Grupo de Física de la Atmósfera y del Océano, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Vigo, Ourense, Spain

rpg, the fact that different groups come up with the same conclusions, and that the trends are only slightly different, shows to me that they were truly independent, because they would have treated and averaged the data differently, or even used completely different data. I would be more worried if they came up with exactly the same answers and the same graphs, that would indicate some sort of fix was in and that the results were duplicated rather than separately reproduced.

spindoc, "Brussels syndrome", rhetoric much? Make that one up yourself? Because it's been used before for something else you know.