CRU E-mails and data

[Devonian]

Indeed. Then no more need to post in this thread then, come back in say... 50 years?

I think not. I've as much right to post my views here as you :lol:

[DAVID SNOW]

I think not. I've as much right to post my views here as you :lol:

Indeed you have,but you are so very angry, why is that?

[rob48]

"Indeed you have,but you are so very angry, why is that? "

Perhaps because very few people enjoy losing.

Especially when they've been having it their own way and enjoying winning for so long.

There's still a chance that vested interests and the liberal-elite dominated MSM will rescue the global-warming crusade.

Currently they're playing their trump card, by talking about everything else.

[Devonian]

Indeed you have,but you are so very angry, why is that?

Angry? No, I said I was enjoying this and I am. Why do you feel the need to portray me in a way that I'm not?

"Indeed you have,but you are so very angry, why is that? "

Perhaps because very few people enjoy losing.

Especially when they've been having it their own way and enjoying winning for so long.

There's still a chance that vested interests and the liberal-elite dominated MSM will rescue the global-warming crusade.

Currently they're playing their trump card, by talking about everything else.

And another misrepresenting me - I wonder why?

Seriously, rob48, I'm not at all angry because I see the AGW scepticism has lost all pretence to be scientific and has become simply a collection of conspiracy theorists grubbing around in other peoples private conversations and that is a very large step backwards. Science has nothing to fear from conspiracy theorists.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Devonian

[rob48]

" grubbing around in other peoples private conversations and that is a very large step backwards."

Which is exactly the opposite of what you'd have said if heretics had been exposed in this manner.

"Seriously, Mr rob48 I'm not at all angry because I see the AGW scepticism has lost all pretence to be scientific "

I'm not presumptious enough to claim to represent ALL AGW sceptics and I've never pretended to be scientific.

I know what I see, and i know when I'm being spun a yarn.

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes................."

"Weapons to be deployed in 45 minutes................."

"No more boom & bust............................."

"Abolished the economic cycle......................." (a personal favourite)

What happened to one of the myriad global warming experts who stated, in August 2006, that we'd have to start growing mediterranian style drought-resistant shrubs in our gardens?

It's hardly stopped raining since.

Global warming?

Right up there with WMD.

The thing they have in common is changing the excuses Climate Change=Regime Change.

You've been had MR Devonian.

Better get used to it.

[VillagePlank]

Thanks for the link, Steve...IMO, both the professors (on the link within a link) talked sensibly and with erudition; and both made valid (if sometimes opposed) points...However, that Daily Mail 'hack' came-across (to me) as a bit of a nutjob???

Yup - that woman needs to be taken to one side and simply told to be quiet! Indeed, the panel on Question Time all needed to be taken to one side and told that a single event a climate does not make. For sure the recent floods are devastating, but it is not representative of the climate. Indeed, nor is the CET. It does annoy me when some people argue that the frost-fairs are not representative because it's local (was the LIA a local event? I think it probably was ...) but a single recent extreme weather event must necessarily be so because it's warmed because we have an event, therefore it's warmed.

It can only be one way or the other: are local events representative of climate? My understanding is that it is not. In fact, it is the frequency of occurence of such events on a global scale that must be publicised and debated - and for no less than 30 years of data, either.

I see the AGW scepticism has lost all pretence to be scientific and has become simply a collection of conspiracy theorists grubbing around in other peoples private conversations and that is a very large step backwards. Science has nothing to fear from conspiracy theorists.

All science is based on scepticism. That is the nature of the beast. There are only a few things that are immutable, and, for those, they are called laws. This means - and rightly so - that everything else is subject to revision, ammendment, or plain rejection. All of it. Including the AGW hypothesis.

Of course, as talked about on 'This Week' last night there is a line to be drawn where scepticism meets cynicism. I judge myself as a sceptic, not a cynic (which as Portillo rightly said last night: cynicism is intellectually lazy) - not some 'conspiracy theorist grubbing around in other peoples private conversations'

Edited November 28, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

I think that one big problem here is that people who are 'deniers' (therefore ideologues and no-better than absolute believers they so despise!) like to hijack the term 'sceptic' for their own? I, for one, would be happier if they were honest enough to call themselves 'cynics', as that's really what they are...

As VP said above (I'm paraphrasing) real science is (by its very definition) a sceptical enterprise... :blush:

[Devonian]

All science is based on scepticism. That is the nature of the beast. There are only a few things that are immutable, and, for those, they are called laws. This means - and rightly so - that everything else is subject to revision, ammendment, or plain rejection. All of it. Including the AGW hypothesis.

Of course, as talked about on 'This Week' last night there is a line to be drawn where scepticism meets cynicism. I judge myself as a sceptic, not a cynic (which as Portillo rightly said last night: cynicism is intellectually lazy) - not some 'conspiracy theorist grubbing around in other peoples private conversations'

That's why I conditioned 'scepticism' with 'AGW'. Otherwise I agree - and the laws of physics are very important to this business. I'm also happy to say (and I don't think I've criticised you) that I've no criticism of your views wrt the e mails. Mine is, to be more specific, a criticism of the kind of 'scepticism' (yes, it's cynicism I guess) that has grubbed around in other peoples private conversations misinterpreting things to confirm pre held prejudices. I think I've made that clear...

I do think some (much even) AGW 'scepticism' has crossed a line recently. It's exposed some of them for what they are.

....

You've been had MR Devonian.

Better get used to it.

We'll see, but such things have been said for several decades. I can't see how you'll be right, but, as I said, time will tell.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Devonian

[Chris Knight]

For a lot of people the Chilcot investigation is to confirm what everyone already knows.

For a lot of people Climategate confirms what was not popularly known.

So RE: Chilcot there is little to talk about that is new - that is why the BBC is giving it blanket coverage.

The BBC is not the only fruit!

I just checked Google. Fewer than 90,000 entries for "Chilcot enquiry". Over 11,000,000 for "Climategate".

My hypothesis gains credence.

:blush:

Suggestions for titles please:

Harry Plotter and the Dendrochronologist of Doom

Harry Plotter and the Hidden Decline

:lol:

[Chris Knight]

Professor Singer said of the little ice age 'the Thames used to freeze over every winter'. Oh no it didn't. He also said that for the last decade or so the planet has been cooling. Not correct.

I agree with the first objection, Dev, but the second one by Singer is strictly correct. Of course, as the earth cooled, it also warmed due to solar irradiation, as has happened for a very long time. The relative global change in temperature is still contentious.

[Methuselah]

Harry Plotter and The Hadcruts Mince... :blush:

[VillagePlank]

RealClimate catalogue, in one place, masses of climate data and source-code, here, as a direct result of accusations of 'climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based'

This stuff will take a while to go through, and I think it's a catalogue of web resources that were always in place. Very handy, though - especially as this stuff is used to produce the same results as the the CRU.

[laserguy]

Harry Plotter and the Warming Wormhole.

[noggin]

Harry Plotter and the Hidden Decline

:blush:

Now I've got the song going through my mind again.......hide the decline, hide the decline, hide the decline, hide the decline...... :lol:

[osmposm]

I agree with the first objection, Dev, but the second one by Singer is strictly correct. Of course, as the earth cooled, it also warmed due to solar irradiation, as has happened for a very long time. The relative global change in temperature is still contentious.

I'm sure that's what Singer meant, Chris. Next time I'm unable to move on a sweltering day, I must remember that my high perspiration levels indicate I am, in fact, rapidly cooling. :lol:

[Chris Knight]

I'm sure that's what Singer meant, Chris. Next time I'm unable to move on a sweltering day, I must remember that my high perspiration levels indicate I am, in fact, rapidly cooling. :lol:

I am not sure that it's what Singer meant, Osm, but it is a valid point that our evolved biology uses the evaporation of water (sweat) on our skin surface as an effective means of removing bodily heat, rather than emitting greenhouse gases from our pores to radiate away excess heat. After all, our biochemistry could (and possibly does) create extremely effective greenhouse molecules, orders of magnitude better than methane, for example.

It would seem strange if our planet did not use the same physical process to lose the majority of heat from our moist land surfaces and oceans.

[PersianPaladin]

Hacked climate change emails - a tempest in a teapot or a real storm? Paul Jay talks to Michael Brklacic

Edited November 28, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Chris Knight]

Now I've got the song going through my mind again.......hide the decline, hide the decline, hide the decline, hide the decline......

Harry Plotter and the Sunny Spells

Synopsis

Harry Plotter's new girlfriend - Heidi De Klein - is in trouble having been captured by the Demented Dendrochronologists, and is being tortured on the rack* in the Ministry of Meteorology "to set the record straight"!

Having joined an underground group led by Mad-Mouth Monkton, Harry and his pals plot to hack their way into the Ministry to return De Klein to HadCruts.

Unfortunately, not only Heidi is released, and the Sunny Spells get out and wreak havoc with the climate, causing severe global warming. All of the professors have to travel to the ends of the earth, but mostly Hawaii, Bali and the Maldives, in order to recapture the spells and restore the balance to the energy budget. The Measley twins, Steve and Ross, audit the whole fiasco, but it doesn't make them any richer than their previous schemes.

*A server rack shared by the "Metly CRU" for email, spells and tricks. Sunny Spells are rare, but very popular.

[Methuselah]

Hacked climate change emails - a tempest in a teapot or a real storm? Paul Jay talks to Michael Brklacic

Nice to see things being put into a sensible perspective, PP...It's more like a dribbling peashooter than a smoking gun IMO...

[Pingo]

Hacked climate change emails - a tempest in a teapot or a real storm? Paul Jay talks to Michael Brklacic

A real storm.

We now have clear undisputable evidence of

i) Criminal acitivty to delete data following FOI requests. I hope Phil Jones still has £5000 of his £28m in grant money left over to pay his fine.

ii) Intimidation of journals not to accept "sceptical" papers. And then in public demanding that sceptics publish in these very journals.

iii) Acknowldgement of not presenting the data as-is, instead doctoring it up (using "tricks" and "hiding" inconvenient facts).

iv) Celebration of a scientific rival's death. (I suppose Devonian thinks this is not a problem as I've not seen him criticise it yet despite his posts on multiple boards)

v) Threats of violence against fellow climate scientists for not towing the party line

vi) Scientists getting involved in wanting to prove their own hypothesis, rather than disprove it.

The temperature series and reconstructions all need to be re-assessed by scientists disinterested in what they show.

Jones and Mann are not credible scientist and should have already resigned. Never mind, they won't be in their jobs for long. Try living in the real world fellas and see if you can get by without defrauding the UK and US taxpayer.

But of course it doesn't weaken the case for AGW - it's still just as weak as it ever was. Only now we know that scientists are up there with bankers and politicians in their ability to screw money out of the honest taxpayer.

We got the government we deserved, and now on top of the financial disaster caused by reckless investments propped up with socialist promises we have academics attacking the very essence of science.

It's been clear this has been going on for a long time, but the evidence was only patchily there. Now the emails have been released showing the bulk of the science to have been a fraud.

There is no AGW problem.

[Methuselah]

Despite the fact that we have no 'clear undisputable evidence' of any such things...Welcome to netweather Pingo!

[Pingo]

Despite the fact that we have no 'clear undisputable evidence' of any such things...Welcome to netweather Pingo!

Please read the released emails. Thanks

[VillagePlank]

A real storm.

We now have clear undisputable evidence of

i) Criminal acitivty to delete data following FOI requests. I hope Phil Jones still has £5000 of his £28m in grant money left over to pay his fine.

ii) Intimidation of journals not to accept "sceptical" papers. And then in public demanding that sceptics publish in these very journals.

iii) Acknowldgement of not presenting the data as-is, instead doctoring it up (using "tricks" and "hiding" inconvenient facts).

iv) Celebration of a scientific rival's death. (I suppose Devonian thinks this is not a problem as I've not seen him criticise it yet despite his posts on multiple boards)

v) Threats of violence against fellow climate scientists for not towing the party line

vi) Scientists getting involved in wanting to prove their own hypothesis, rather than disprove it.

Strange, I thought that I'd done a reasonable job of addressing criticisms such as these in previous pages. If you have anything to add, I'd be glad to cast an eye over it ...

There is no AGW problem.

Well, there are two other agencies that have already published their data, and their source-code that reach the same conclusion as the UEA. Have you found a global problem including NASA, and NOAA - I looked but I couldn't find even a trace of anything like evidence. Have I missed something?

(and before any regulars comment on that I've been complaining about the lack of data and source-code for years - there is still no release of historical air-pressure data, that I can find)

Edited November 29, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Pingo]

Strange, I thought that I'd done a reasonable job of addressing criticisms such as these in previous pages. If you have anything to add, I'd be glad to cast an eye over it ... Well, there are two other agencies that have already published their data, and their source-code that reach the same conclusion as the UEA. Have you found a global problem including NASA, and NOAA - I looked but I couldn't find even a trace of anything like evidence. Have I missed something? (and before any regulars comment on that I've been complaining about the lack of data and source-code for years - there is still no release of historical air-pressure data, that I can find)

So there's an AGW problem, and the UEA were so convinced there was a problem that they decided to raise doubts over their integrity by keeping data hidden? <BR><BR>In my line of work, I always present every single bit of information and working (even if it's probably not assessed 90% of the time thanks to people trusting my output). 2 reasons.<BR><BR>i) If I'm right I want people to damn well know it<BR>ii) If I'm (unknowingly) wrong, I want it found out before too much harm is caused<BR><BR>Science is all about replicability, let me know when you've come to the same numbers as the UEA from the raw data. Edited November 29, 2009 by Pingo

[VillagePlank]

So there's an AGW problem, and the UEA were so convinced there was a problem that they decided to raise doubts over their integrity by keeping data hidden? <BR><BR>In my line of work, I always present every single bit of information and working (even if it's probably not assessed 90% of the time thanks to people trusting my output). 2 reasons.<BR><BR>i) If I'm right I want people to damn well know it<BR>ii) If I'm (unknowingly) wrong, I want it found out before too much harm is caused<BR><BR>Science is all about replicability, let me know when you've come to the same numbers as the UEA from the raw data.

95% of the station data is shared, and NASA, and NOAA have already done so. If you give me £25m then I'd be happy to set up a unit to do as you ask, but, alas, whilst I am a reasonably good software developer, the purchase of super-computers is beyond my fiscal reach.

Edited November 29, 2009 by VillagePlank