[anamax]

>> When I hear "scientists" say that they're not going to release data to folks "who want to prove them wrong"

> Um what?

Philip Jones, in response to a request for "his" data (which was paid for by taxpayers), said "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Does this prove that he knows that he's hiding something? No. It doesn't even prove that he's unknowingly hiding something. For all we know, his data could be perfect or even more supportive of his theory than he's stated. (However, there is the small matter that it looks like every correction to the prominent AGW research has gone the other way, which is statistically odd.)

However, it does demonstrate that dejb's "pure/rational scientists" theory is bunk.

> Seriously though this is getting a bit far off the deep end.

What's "deep end" about the truth?

Scientists are monkeys and they (occasionally) behave like monkeys. If your belief system requires otherwise, you've got a problem.

[dejb]

Good to see that you put in the effort to back up your claims. Despite the fact that your other claim was misrepresented (I'll reply to that separately) I'll take you at your word that this instance is as stated.

Your original statement implied to me that this was a common occurance rather than a single case. Anyone can cherry pick individual cases that might look bad against any group of people. I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.

To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case in general you would have to show that scientists who suport the global warming case are generally a lot less forthcoming with their data than other comparable areas (or with sceptics if there was a statistically valid sample group of recognised scientists in that group).

I'm not saying scientist are perfect. But compared with the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day. And really that's what it comes down to. Nothing is an absolute certainly. We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities. Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.

[anamax]

> To actually count this as evidence againt the global warming case

Strawman. I explicitly wrote that it wasn't evidence against (or for) the global warming case. I wrote that it was evidence against dejb's faith in the "science" behavior exhibited scientists with whom he agrees.

Since dejb's only evidence for his faith is their behavior....

> I'd be amused to see what 'Global warming sceptics-sceptics' could dig up ubout individual sceptics.

The mark of actual science is looking for holes in what you believe in. The mark of faith is looking for support for what you believe in and looking for holes in what you oppose.

Note the difference....

> the motley crew of inferentially challenged global warming sceptics I have experienced I would back them any day.

Since "motley crew of inferentially challenged" also describes the AGW believers that dejb "have experienced"....

> Nothing you have said provides any sort of evidence that I should trust the scientific consensus any less than for any other issue.

Except that the scientific concensus isn't. Moreover, scientific concensus doesn't actually have any scientific weight. Then again, you have actually understand science to know why.

> We all individually and collectively have to make decisions based on probablilities.

Since we don't make decisions based on probabilities, this is an interesting usage of the term "have to make".

I recommend Feyerabend and some direct observations of actual scientists. Popper's discussions of "scientism" are also relevant.