Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

What's The Meto Got To Hide?


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

No, he is criticising the use of inflammatory terms like "warmist", "coolist", because they contribute nothing, they amount to name-calling. Some of the more sceptical contributors seem to think that various actions on here (like name-calling, stating that things are certain when they aren't, mis-representing people's views and arguments with strawmen) are acceptable if the person disagrees with AGW but unacceptable if the person agrees with AGW.

By AtlanticFlameThrower's argument, should the Met Office provide everything that it does for free because it's a publicly funded company? If so should that be applied to all publicly owned companies? And wouldn't this provide publicly owned companies at a disadvantage because all competing private companies would have free access to all of their stuff, but be able to hide their own stuff?

And then we get around to the case-specific problem: here people are criticising the Met Office for not freely providing data that other organisations have provided them with, on the proviso that they don't freely provide it. Again, seems a little bit harsh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres

Don't worry Atlanticflamethrower, I'm not easily intimidated, trust me! I can't see why they are defending the MetO in this instance, but I will be seeing my local MP, to see why they are with holding information.

Awesome keep me updated. We need a question in Parliament about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs

No, he is criticising the use of inflammatory terms like "warmist", "coolist", because they contribute nothing, they amount to name-calling. Some of the more sceptical contributors seem to think that various actions on here (like name-calling, stating that things are certain when they aren't, mis-representing people's views and arguments with strawmen) are acceptable if the person disagrees with AGW but unacceptable if the person agrees with AGW.

By AtlanticFlameThrower's argument, should the Met Office provide everything that it does for free because it's a publicly funded company? If so should that be applied to all publicly owned companies? And wouldn't this provide publicly owned companies at a disadvantage because all competing private companies would have free access to all of their stuff, but be able to hide their own stuff?

And then we get around to the case-specific problem: here people are criticising the Met Office for not freely providing data that other organisations have provided them with, on the proviso that they don't freely provide it. Again, seems a little bit harsh?

Well warmists is better than holocaust deniers, that a certain scientist labelled all sceptics! As for your last point, which private organastion provides global temperatures? None as I'm aware off, they are all government funded!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres

By AtlanticFlameThrower's argument, should the Met Office provide everything that it does for free because it's a publicly funded company? If so should that be applied to all publicly owned companies? And wouldn't this provide publicly owned companies at a disadvantage because all competing private companies would have free access to all of their stuff, but be able to hide their own stuff?

They're publicly funded. They're not supposed to make a profit. They're their to help the tax payer, which includes those competing private companies.

In any case, what has been requested has no commercial value to a private company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: portsmouth uk
  • Weather Preferences: extremes
  • Location: portsmouth uk

Confidentiality isnt just about hiding something, it can be protecting ones work rights after much work. It can be about protecting ones methods.

Take it into the context of general confidentiality, and its not about hiding something, but about protecting something.

its about protecting something so its a secret if it where a weapon or something that could be dangerous to human life.

but this information was not asked for by joe public from what i know this is a respected scientist.

information is freely passed from other organizations that deal with climate so what is the problem sounds hugely fishy to me.

i thought climate scientists work together on this thats the whole point 1000s of brains are better than 1 unless ofcoarse you where trying to hide something.

i think the methods excuse is lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: portsmouth uk
  • Weather Preferences: extremes
  • Location: portsmouth uk

They're publicly funded. They're not supposed to make a profit. They're their to help the tax payer, which includes those competing private companies.

In any case, what has been requested has no commercial value to a private company.

yep that information they hold belongs to us fullstop. :cray:

i also very strongly feel it dont matter warmist or coldie thats not what call bad at all its perhapes a observation.

ofcoarse some will stick up for met office purely just because there on the other side of the fence,

in other words warmist will stck by the met office because of there strong views on gw its just the way it is they stick with there own kind,

and the met office are bias towards warming but there forecasting short term is excellent.

there longterm is dredfull.

as much as people wont admit it,

all i ever read is warming stories yet if you look around the net others talk about cooling side of things.

remember gw is big money spinner and meto are firmly involved they will only publish what they feel is fitting and it would not be in there best intrest to publish anything that goes against the grain.

and maybe just maybe this is why this very important information is being witheld at the cost of the tax payer.

Edited by badboy657
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

They're publicly funded. They're not supposed to make a profit. They're their to help the tax payer, which includes those competing private companies.

In any case, what has been requested has no commercial value to a private company.

But you (and Solar Cycles) insist on ignoring the point that the Met Office has agreed a contract/licence with the producers of the data saying that they cannot freely release the data. So by offering it for free they would be breaking the licence agreement. Thus I maintain that the main source of aggravation should go towards the people who provide the data to the Met Office and not the Met Office itself.

As for the general "funded by the public" comment, it depends on what the funding goes towards. For example any public-funded company could argue that the funding only covers some of their work and for a lot of other work they'd have to get extra funding from elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres

But you (and Solar Cycles) insist on ignoring the point that the Met Office has agreed a contract/licence with the producers of the data saying that they cannot freely release the data.

Read the second FOI request sent to UEA.

Only the first letter was to the Met Office. I reprinted the second letter page 3.

So by offering it for free they would be breaking the licence agreement. Thus I maintain that the main source of aggravation should go towards the people who provide the data to the Met Office and not the Met Office itself.

Why does the licence holder want to invoke the licence in this particular case, when the licence has before been waived and when the data in question is of no commercial value?

As for the general "funded by the public" comment, it depends on what the funding goes towards. For example any public-funded company could argue that the funding only covers some of their work and for a lot of other work they'd have to get

No it doesn't, a government owned institution is a government owned institution, no matter what proportion of its funds are raised from non-government sources.

Scientists should work for a private climate science company if they don't want to be forced to disclose their work from FOI requests.

The market will then value this work accordingly.

Edited by AtlanticFlamethrower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield

Now, go back and read Essan's post?

Yes, and?

Sorry your point is ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres

Here was my reply (the meat of it) to a point Essan raised. Perhaps Devonian would like to comment on that too.

I bet if a scientist carrying out genuine research asked for the data he'd get it no trouble

McIntyre is a scientist, published in major scientific journals - heck, he was cited in IPCC AR4. There really is no excuse and nowhere to hide. Give him the raw data, let's see how it measures up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Here was my reply (the meat of it) to a point Essan raised. Perhaps Devonian would like to comment on that too.

McIntyre is a scientist, published in major scientific journals - heck, he was cited in IPCC AR4. There really is no excuse and nowhere to hide. Give him the raw data, let's see how it measures up.

Tell me who you are and stop hiding!

Sorry your point is ???

Clear enough that I wont repeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield

Tell me who you are and stop hiding!

Clear enough that I wont repeat it.

That you don't like anyone that may find holes in your GW debate????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

funny-pictures-cognitive-disonance.jpg

(That was a very silly response, which deserves an equally silly reply.)

What is 'silly' is people who carefully guard the identity while pontificating on about others doing the same with data. It IS both truly astonishing and clear double standards.

If you can't win a argument, it's best to bow out gracefully Dev!

I've noticed you often do this - try to turn around a position of double standards to your owen advantage. Sorry, but I can see through it :lol:.

Anyway, in the spirit of openness would you care to say who you are? What have you to hide? Something relevant I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs

What is 'silly' is people who carefully guard the identity while pontificating on about others doing the same with data. It IS both truly astonishing and clear double standards.

I've noticed you often do this - try to turn around a position of double standards to your owen advantage. Sorry, but I can see through it smile.gif.

Anyway, in the spirit of openness would you care to say who you are? What have you to hide? Something relevant I suspect.

Oh I'm just a lone solider, in a world full of chiefs! wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres

What is 'silly' is people who carefully guard the identity while pontificating on about others doing the same with data. It IS both truly astonishing and clear double standards.

It isn't, because here's the deal: if the Met Office release under FOI all that is required of them I will tell you who I am.

That's a fair trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

It isn't, because here's the deal: if the Met Office release under FOI all that is required of them I will tell you who I am.

That's a fair trade.

I don't make deals like that.

My name is Peter Hearnden and I have nothing to hide wrt any of this nor do I make such bargains thank you very much - because my openness doesn't need to be bought!

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

What is 'silly' is people who carefully guard the identity while pontificating on about others doing the same with data. It IS both truly astonishing and clear double standards.

I've noticed you often do this - try to turn around a position of double standards to your owen advantage. Sorry, but I can see through it :) .

Anyway, in the spirit of openness would you care to say who you are? What have you to hide? Something relevant I suspect.

I do understand your frustration, Dev. But, I guess I'm equivocal about folks hiding behind avatars and pseudomyms: some obviously do it out of need (the mole who leaked MP's expences?) some just as a bit of fun/mystique. On the other hand, however, are those with nefarious reasons for hiding behind their anonymity. And, who knows who falls into which category?

My own perference is to use the my given name; as, at my age, I doubt I'll ever need to worry much about cyberstalkers (even Zimmer-fetishists :lol: ) and the like. But, I can see legitimate reasons for anonymity...

Anyway, back on topic, the data are out now. (And, due to the abundance of choreographic posturing involved in the whole episode, I suspect they already were?) So, perhaps this thread has served its purpose??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Well warmists is better than holocaust deniers, that a certain scientist labelled all sceptics! As for your last point, which private organastion provides global temperatures? None as I'm aware off, they are all government funded!

I agree, Solar. 'Warmist' is a better term than 'Holocaust Denier'. And yes, it was wrong of that 'certain scientist' to bandy the term about re: AGW sceptics; such rhetoric is reprehensible. (I have been labeled as such for that very reason!) But, two wrongs don't make a right. And, applying labels (By either side!) does not win anyone over...

So, let's all move on and discuss the data? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

I do understand your frustration, Dev. But, I guess I'm equivocal about folks hiding behind avatars and pseudomyms: some obviously do it out of need (the mole who leaked MP's expences?) some just as a bit of fun/mystique. On the other hand, however, are those with nefarious reasons for hiding behind their anonymity. And, who knows who falls into which category?

Exactly Pete. While I suspect no one here has nefarious reasons for hiding their 'data' (just like the CRU!) I can (like McIntyre) ask distracting questions. But all of it is entirely pointless.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: portsmouth uk
  • Weather Preferences: extremes
  • Location: portsmouth uk

I agree, Solar. 'Warmist' is a better term than 'Holocaust Denier'. And yes, it was wrong of that 'certain scientist' to bandy the term about re: AGW sceptics; such rhetoric is reprehensible. (I have been labeled as such for that very reason!) But, two wrongs don't make a right. And, applying labels (By either side!) does not win anyone over...

So, let's all move on and discuss the data? :)

or we should say the data that we cant get hold of lol :lol:

its also clear all the time we wait for the information then the more i become skeptical along with a few others i expect.

Edited by badboy657
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs
  • Location: Burntwood, Staffs

Quite apparent on this thread that the proAGW brigade want this data withheld (expounded in the usual condescending manner) and the heretics can't see any reason for the secrecy.

I'm sure there's a moral there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...