Pot meet kettle

thumbs up by richkidsunite

I appreciate the effort that Robert Geiner at Watts Up with That made regarding the computer code that I also discussed. He demonstrates the fact that many people with scientific training can bring the logical tools they have learned to bear on a wide range of problems, as he has done here.

However, he again does what many of the so-called agnostics are doing with this code. They only examine a fragment that they can then use to sow as much confusion as possible. He does not discuss the immediate lines following the ‘suspect’ code.

He shows the code where it declares a variable using the so-called fudge factor [yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)] and then displays what it would look like when graphed.

He leaves out the following code that was designed to do this exact thing – graph the data:

;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;

I have to wonder why? The code itself contains the instructions to print the fudge factor data. Why did Geiner not just show the exact code?

Perhaps because it is commented out by the semicolons and is not used at all in the execution of the code. This would certainly complicate his discussion.

So, taken at face value, this entire post of Geiner’s was about a fragment of some code that was not executed in a program that has never been shown to be used. And the relevant segment demonstrating this was left out.

Geiner’s post makes me think of the Manufactured Doubt Industry efforts. (See I can also imply connections and connotations when none has been shown to really occur. Speculating on purposes and not examining relevant information to sow doubt is not science.)

Now being skeptical is an important point and we need to be sure that all things are looked at. This is something that all sides of any useful debate need to follow. However, ignoring an important aspect of the code and using a fragment in a way purely to cast innuendo is not the mark of a skeptic to me. Leaving out vital information that does not match one’s viewpoint seems to me to be the very thing that so-called agnostics are accusing the researchers of.

Why would a so-called agnostic with scientific training ignore possibly relevant information that was right there in front of his face? Perhaps it is just an error. We are all human and make mistakes sometimes. We can not know for sure and we do not need to have an investigation to find out.

I just find it ironic, though, that he may be guilty of the same sort of ‘defined’ viewpoint that climate researchers are being accused of. Matthew 7:1-5 might be relevant.