Even before you've gotten a chance to analyze it and publish on it yourself?
Even data that doesn't end up being published?

Describing the algorithm isn't sufficient?

What I keep seeing over and over is references to all these examples of methodology problems, bad organization, etc. What I haven't seen is anything linking these problems to actual published works from the group. In fact, I've heard that most of the data they were "refusing to release" was never actually used in any publication.

Evidence showing a disorganized work-in-progress proves nothing to me. Where are the actual flaws in the published literature? And who's working on new publications to correct them?

Interesting that the two examples given in that article were cases where the defendant was eventually found NOT GUILTY.

No, stock firefox supports it.

Make Magazine is fun, and can give some good ideas, but it's far from technical at all.

Hey nuts and volts still exists though.

Perhaps the models were not accurate enough in the long-run in predicting albedo for aerospace engineering purposes, but that doesn't mean they aren't accurate enough in the long run in predicting global temperature mean and other variables important for climate change .

And several times in your post you emphasized that "you were taught" this. Did you independently verify it or did you just accept it as true because that's what you needed to do for your project? Do you know if the climate models in question were up to date with the latest climate science?

Here's a page that shows modeled surface temperature since the 1800s matching pretty well with observed data: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

It took me 1 minute to google for that information. It probably took you a lot longer to write your post.

But the climate gate folks have steadfastly refused to release their methods, including their computer code, and the data they did release was not the data they used in their publications. Further, they 'lost' some data altogether.

Ok, this should be easy for you then: Please cite one specific peer-reviewed publication from someone involved with "climategate" whose data or methods cannot be traced.

So, yes, how about we apply the same standard to Wikipedia?

Because wikipedia isn't the same kind of thing, and isn't trying to be the same kind of thing?

How about we hold journalists accountable when they use an encyclopedia instead of doing their job properly?

Since they stole his words, I wonder how far a copyright lawsuit would get!

Once you post words to wikipedia, they're no longer your words.

Of course the said thing is, when it gets added back to the article, they'll just cite the mainstream newspapers that copied the phony quote. And then it'll become a part of the ever burgeoning body of Wikipedia's New Truth. Facts? Facts be damned, we don't need those in an encyclopedia.

Wait, so now it's made clear that mainstream, non-encyclopedia sources aren't checking their sources, sometimes post bad, unverified information, and somehow this is still Wikipedia's fault? The wikihate runs deep.

.... but they convert some carbon into methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I'd expect they'd still have less of an effect than lawnmowers, but has anyone actually done the math?