|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/ipcc_scientist_disputes_global_warming_hype
This guy is a member of the IPCC panel who authored the 2007 report
When your own people start saying 'Hey hold on a minute...' you know something's wrong. |
You should expand on that thought. From your link:
| Quote: |
There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why.
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see
jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who
see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming
apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human
action gives them comfort and an easy answer. |
Lack of humility can be found on two sides of this debate, I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Have the peer-reviewed journals ever accepted anything that argues against evolution? |
Have you considered the possibility that there hasn't been any such article to cut the mustard of peer review? |
Have you considered the possibility that there hasn't been any such article by global warming skeptics to cut the mustard of peer review? |
Well when you have global warming advocates blocking all such attempts and fudging the data to support their claims...it would hardly be surprising, would it? |
Do you have proof that 'global warming advocates' have managed to block all such attempts?
|
If we are assuming (for the sake of argument) there is no such article by global warming skeptics to cut the mustard of peer review" it stands to reason that all such attempts have been blocked n'est ce pas? That said I should have said "blocking all such attempts to my knowledge" Yes we have proof that they do make such attempts as seen in the CRU e-mails. |
No, because if you are saying (as I assume) that if no article by global warming skeptics made it through the peer review process, this could only mean that all such(skeptic) articles had been blocked (despite the articles being good enough) - then your logic is utterly faulty. There is at least one other alternative - and that is that any such article was such a load of bunkum, it simply didn't meet with the scientific rigour required to pass through the process.
Now, both those articles that were discussed in those emails have not stood the test of time. In other words, they were crap. One (published in the journal Climate Research) turned out to be so badly flawed that it resulted in people losing their jobs at the journal.
Furthermore, I rather suspect the main reason Jones and co didn't want those published was that - even though they were flawed papers - they would give the denial industry a huge boost. Even when the papers were later shown to be utter crap - the damage would be done. A case in point is a book called "Heaven and Earth" written by a nutty Australian professor (with no background in climate science) that has been a huge boon to the skeptic movement - despite the book being regularly torn to pieces many times over for its incredibly shoddy science, false data/statements and illogical arguments. It's utter crap - and yet it's had a huge impact around the world.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, are you able to discuss how the data has been fudged?
| TUM wrote: |
| I posted a link to Nowhere Man's response showing how the data has been fudged...the weather stations data. However I am not a scientist so perhaps reading the link would answer the intricacies of this question |
|
I read an article that dealt with this issue (it was also levelled at CRU) at the time of the hacking leak, but my google skills fail me for the moment (they keep leading me to skeptic blogs!). I hope I can find it when I have more time. But anyway, it explained how much of this 'fudging' is quite legitimate - sometimes the data has to be adjusted because of differences in the way the data has been collected. There may be several variables involved, and these have to be taken into account. For example, if you want to look at data taken from a particular weather station which has at some point been relocated a little further from its original location, say 150 metres higher above sea level than in its previous location, you cannot use the data pre-relocation and post-relocation in the same graph without adjusting either the pre or post data to adust for the changed circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| No, I want this discussion to remain within the narrow confines of what I asked in the OP. |
For that matter, Big_Bird, none of us are scientists.
Your proposal is too narrow and ignores the fact that the anthropogenic global-warming movement is a broad political alliance and not merely a narrow group of disinterested, apolitical scientists. |
Nonsense. I want to examine the scientific data, and to what extent this hacking exercise has shown there to flaws or shortcomings in the research. There is no rule that I must therefore widen the discussion to include politics.
| Quote: |
| It has its politics; indeed, its, at times, anti-human politics, or at least its pro-Third World, anti-Neolithic and anti-industrial politics seem central to it, at every turn. And we ought to become absolutely aware of these politics before deciding to follow anyone's lead on this. That remains my point. |
Of course this issue comes with its politics. Case in point are the rightwing loons desperate to discredit tens and thousands of scientists so they can cling to their need for things to stay the way they were. But that can have its own thread, and need not be discussed here. Again, that is a secondary discussion that I do not wish to focus on here.
| Quote: |
| I, for one, have no intention of supporting politics that begin with the premise that humans stand outside of Nature and are indeed its enemy, or any legislation, for that matter, that will "admit" my culture's "guilt" in global warming, or transfer billions and billions and billions of dollars into southern hemisphere nations who will only squander it within five to ten years, max, and then demand more. |
What poppycock. You don't want to take action to avert serious problems in the future, because you think its all about admitting your culture's guilt? You don't have a stake in the world's future? It's in our own interest that we act now to deal with this potential calamity. And why is it all about our guilt? Countries like China and India are also culpable and need to make drastic amendments too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:00 am Post subject: Re: How has the (climate) science been disproved? |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?
|
Except that a "trick" in the email is clearly a "trick" intended to mislead and decieve the public. The context of the email makes it clear that "trick" means an attempt to hide the truth. |
Here, educate yourself:
| Quote: |
One email, however, from Phil Jones, has been singled out by the usual suspects because it appears to suggest someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." But again, you'd have to be part of the conversation to properly interpret it. Fortunately, the Real Climate gang are, and have been, part of the loop, and they explain it thus:
| Quote: |
| The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens. |
|
The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn't
| onetheway wrote: |
| It also clear from the context of the email that "hide" is used to mean actually "hide" the truth. |
And educate yourself some more:
| Quote: |
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.
| Quote: |
* The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there's still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
* Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
* E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn't talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Trying to justify what Phil Jones et al have done with lies and political positions that pretend to be other than political is a desperate attempt to avoid the truth that has been revealed by the emails. |
What 'truth' is that then?
| ontheway wrote: |
| Other scientists around the world have already indicated that they will be throwing out the tainted data and starting over. The real scientific community has already agreed to throw the AGW data out and begin again. The scientific reality is that that is what needs to be done. |
Who are the 'real scientific community?'
| ontheway wrote: |
| The political attempt to save Jones by using lies to protect him is shameful. Jones and his group should be prosecuted for fraud. |
Has fraud been proven? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Have the peer-reviewed journals ever accepted anything that argues against evolution? |
Have you considered the possibility that there hasn't been any such article to cut the mustard of peer review? |
Have you considered the possibility that there hasn't been any such article by global warming skeptics to cut the mustard of peer review? |
Well when you have global warming advocates blocking all such attempts and fudging the data to support their claims...it would hardly be surprising, would it? |
Do you have proof that 'global wa |
If we are assuming (for the sake of argument) there is no such article by global warming skeptics to cut the mustard of peer review" it stands to reason that all such attempts have been blocked n'est ce pas? That said I should have said "blocking all such attempts to my knowledge" Yes we have proof that they do make such attempts as seen in the CRU e-mails.
|
Anyway here is how the IPCC responds to your charge:
| Quote: |
| Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed. |
And from Newsweek:
| Quote: |
| The facts support this assertion. In one 2004 e-mail that's come under much scrutiny, Jones wrote of two controversial papers that "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow � even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" But both papers under discussion, Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004), were cited in one of the three working group reports from which the 2007 IPCC report is synthesized. |
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226398/page/2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:43 am Post subject: Re: How has the (climate) science been disproved? |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?
|
Except that a "trick" in the email is clearly a "trick" intended to mislead and decieve the public. The context of the email makes it clear that "trick" means an attempt to hide the truth.
It also clear from the context of the email that "hide" is used to mean actually "hide" the truth. |
Newsweek addresses this too:
| Quote: |
Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that's not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we've noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.
Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it's a "trick" in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat�"a clever thing to do," as he put it � not a deception. What's hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn't track with thermometer measurements. East Anglia Research Professor Andrew Watson explained in an article in The Times of London:
Watson: Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that � for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.
|
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226398/page/2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:26 am Post subject: Re: How has the (climate) science been disproved? |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?
|
Except that a "trick" in the email is clearly a "trick" intended to mislead and decieve the public. The context of the email makes it clear that "trick" means an attempt to hide the truth.
It also clear from the context of the email that "hide" is used to mean actually "hide" the truth. |
Newsweek addresses this too:
| Quote: |
Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that's not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we've noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.
Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it's a "trick" in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat�"a clever thing to do," as he put it � not a deception. What's hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn't track with thermometer measurements. East Anglia Research Professor Andrew Watson explained in an article in The Times of London:
Watson: Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that � for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.
|
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226398/page/2 |
Yes, Big Bird, many political hacks and their lackeys have carried water for the phony stats and repeated the lie that the terms "trick" and "hide" were used innocently. This argument doesn't stand up to the light of reality if you read the emails.
They meant it as a "trick" in the sense of being deceitful and they meant "hide" as in "cover up the truth." What they actually meant is clear and it corresponds exactly with what they did.
The reason they had to hide the decline is that the AGW scientists had a problem with their studies. They were trying to show past temperatures with models based on certain assumptions. We have no actual temperatures available from hundreds and thousands of years ago. So, some method of constructing such temperatures must be used. If the models are valid, then they should also be able to use them to predict temperatures for years in which we have actual data.
The models didn't work for years in which actual data exist, so Mann et al in the phony AGW "science" community - which is really just a group of money grubbing political hacks - just threw out the inconvenient data. Then, they could pretend that their phony numbers represented real science.
Of course we have also found that they threw out any numbers in the past and present that caused the real trend lines from the real numbers to differ from the trend lines that they wanted to present in their results.
Your own source explains this, but the writer clearly is too obtuse to understand the facts. If the numbers being thrown out do not correspond with the real data, then the entire model needs to be thrown out. Mann had to use "trick" (fraudulent lie) to include the real data to "hide" the decline (mask the obvious failure of his entire study) or else his entire thesis would be thrown out.
The emails prove that they changed the numbers, models, and computer programs so as to generate the desired results.
So, it's clear what "trick" and "hide" meant in the emails.
It is also clear that anyone who tries to protect these liars is either a fellow liar or a dupe.
Real Climate is clearly part of the cabal.
Newsweek may be just in the land of dupes.
Mann and his cronies should be arrested and charged with fraud. They have participated in a fraud bigger than either Enron or Bernie Madoff. They should go to jail for a long time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THE ULTIMATE CRASH-COURSE ON THE CLIMATE ARGUMENT FROM TWO NERDS ARGUING ON THE INTERNET.
NerdA posts a link.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The fighting begins (NerdB will always be quoted while NERDA will not, so the walls of text can be distinguished.)
If you are able to read through all of this, you will be thoroughly introduced to the debates surrounding climategate, as well as ancillary AGW positions.
Names have been edited as "*NAME*" to protect the nerdly so they don't kill me.
NERDB:
[quote]
"According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged."
The fact you take this seriously really worries me, *NAME.* "[/qoute]
NERDA:
"http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece... See More
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/nov/28/lets-get-whole-truth-on-global-warming/
�We do now have hundreds of e-mails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics."
The fact that you do not take this seriously really worries me, *NAME.*"
NERDB:
| Quote: |
Wow, a quote from a WSJ editorial without so much as a name attached to it... very convincing. I especially like how, of the included illegally obtained emails, WSJ cant find anything particullar damning and can only criticize their candor and naughty language in interdepartmental communications. none of the other sites you lists supported the ... See Moreclaim of conspiracy either... not with any relavent quotations anyway...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to �get rid of the MWP�, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no �marching orders� from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though." |
NERDA:
"Wow, *NAME*.
1) They had to be obtained illegally, because it the scientists were DELETING them, in direct violation of FOIA laws. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
2) Saying that a WSJ op piece is questionable because it has no name (I notice you were unable to argue with anything it presented) is odd. Saying that REALCLIMATE.ORG, your link, is owned by Environmental Media Services and Betsy Ensly, however, comes much closer to an argument for dismissal. Ensley founded Womenagainstbush.org, bushgreenwatch.org. Her former secretary was Kalee Kreider, Gore's spokesperson. Arlie Schardt, Gore's former ps, is on the EMS board of directors. Remember Moveon.org? EMS owns Fenton Communications!
There's your nefarious funding and political bias mention that you wanted so bad. To quote Realcimate.org is an act of desperation. Not to mention wrong. ... See More
"No admission that global warming is a hoax" - we have admissions that they can't explain why it STOPPED
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/24/24climatewire-stolen-e-mails-sharpen-a-brawl-between-clima-19517.html
So why fudge the numbers?
Why "hide the decline?" Why "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
Why hide the programmer's admission that
"As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
..Station counts that the IPCC says it RELIES ON MOST HEAVILY?
Wait, I know why:
(From the same programmer) "failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project."
Doesn't the statement
"we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!" explain that "proper" has nothing to do with scientific accuracy, but adherence to an ideology?
Doesn't inter-office admissions of phantom stations
("Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!")
and bull**** readings
("There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates") with no outward admissions that there is anything wrong qualify as conspiracy of the worst sort?
What about their scientific process? It's reproducible, surely?
"The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost."
"we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that."
"I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. "
At least these are isolated data incidents, right?
"rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was."
So what we have here is:
A) A wide-spread database failure of what was in the IPCC's 2007 climate-change report, what the EPA "relies on most heavily" and what is supposedly the largest set of climate statistics in the world.
B) A cover-up, including FOIA denials, email deletions, admissions between colleagues that the information is invalid and impossible to reproduce, and secret admissions that they cannot explain a decade of warming cessation, along with described methods to "hide the decline."
C) You, more than being outraged that scientists are deliberately distorting, hiding and deleting data, seem to be protecting such actions against �illegal� email hacking of information that should always have been public, and name-calling. This is not a partisan issue. It�s black-and-white. Data procedures and methods should be out in the open. ANY attempts to manipulate data for a desired outcome should be discouraged, not just the ones from the side you hate. Thinking you are �right� about climate change is not justification for removing evidence to the contrary. It reminds me a great deal of the ACORN scandals, where certain parties were more concerned with the surveillance method than the widespread evidence of ACORN�s widespread and subversive operating procedures.
I've provided you with proof and quotes....including those directly from CBS and NYT, not exactly staunch supporters of climate skepticism.
You've provided me with an (incorrect) statement from an appallingly biased source funded by some of the most partisan people on the planet.
I've shown you proof that scientists have colluded to misrepresent information and manipulation other data to for a desired outcome.
You've responded with, in essence, "the hacker broke the law!"
I've yet to see you find anything relevant to set up your pathologically naive (or happily ignorant) position that this is not as bad as it looks (or worse).
The ball is in your court.
NERDB:
| Quote: |
1) Except the University of East Anglia is based in the UK, which contrary to popular belief is not part of 'Merica, and thus not subject to FOIA.
2) Saying WSJ op piece is questionable because they have a history of printing admitted Heritage foundation PR pieces as unascribed "editorials" is a legit argument in itself. They have made several libelous claims in the piece implying 'the evidence of wrongdoing is certainly in those 3700 emails somewhere.'while never actually providing anything near the smoking gun they claim to have found.
The link I posted was written by Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, A climate scientist working for NASA's Goddard institute for space studies. As someone studying planetary science, who has read many of his peer reviewed papers, and has listened to several of his lectures, I can attest that he knows his stuff (though maybe im in on it too...hide the children!). He's an authority in his field, regardless of who owns the website. If you want to pull the "owned by evil politicos" card, perhaps you should read the actual emails you claim are so damning. The primary complaint most of the sites you posted charged against CRU, was that they wanted to blackball Climate Research Journal. Why? because it was BOUGHT by a climate change denying PR firm, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and was being used as a soapbox for legitimizing non-peer reviewed anti-climatechange junk science.... See More
here's the best part though. among the leaked emails is some of the code itself for the models. its written in a language called IDL, an expensive science software suite, but if you know your way around a linux box you can compile it yourself with GDL (http://gnudatalanguage.sourceforge.net/) in g++. The trends are there, and in the context of the data provided, the emails are clearly talking about trivial declines among a vast upward trend. notice less and less emphasis is being put on the "hide the decline" quote as new articles come out.
*NAME*, your a smart and well educated guy, but you cant pick up and interpret these sorts of jargon rich interdepartmental communications without context and expect to get a full picture of whats going on. Yes, even scientists can be d**ks in private email, and it can be easy to spin at first sight, but beyond the frustrated tone, there is nothing there. Remember the Sarah Palin email scandal? half a week of "Somebody hacked her, we'll catch her now!" and then once the media actually digested the data nothing came of it. same deal. |
NERDA:
1) The UK has a FOIA. This is not new.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2517935
2) I provided the evidence for you. You've yet to dispute it.
3) *FULL NAME'S* recommendation does not carry the weight you appear to believe it does. I wasn't quoting Climate Research Journal. YOU were quoting RealClimate.
That's the disconnect. Rail about it all you want, I didn't even talk about ClimateResearch.
You claim they are " trivial declines among a vast upward trend."
The quotes do not support that. Among then, quotes that the entirety of the station count data is "meaningless."
To dismiss these as small is argue the scale of deception, not to deny deception. At the end of the day, the people you are defending are still liars, even if you were to be right (which it appears you are not).
4) I'm not talking about scientists being "d**ks"
- I have not included any of the quotes about being happy that skeptics died / wanting to beat them up. I only included quotes centering on the manipulation of science. Quotes you have yet to refute.
5) Relating this to Sarah Palin? Are you stating that these "scientists" are nothing more than political animals, as she is? If you are not, then I don't see a connection between what should be political and what should be scientific. There is no point there. To say that nothing came out of a Sarah Palin "scandal" has no bearing on this. There's no connection, in any way, shape or form, other than perhaps a visceral liberal hatred of all things Palin.
The fact remains that we have a situation where people are manipulating data, skewing trends, hiding declines and destroying records...and you seem OK with that.
For someone who is studying science, that is disturbing in itself."
NERDB:
| Quote: |
*deepbreath* ok, lets see if I can address this without exceeding facebook's wall character limit...
1)UK's FOI does not cover international commissions like US's FOIA. IPCC data is exempt, CRU communications outside of IPCC are not, however all the deletion requests not covered by IPCC were atleast a decade old, prior to FOI and not covered by its predecessor DPA. this is how it was explained to me, im no legal expert, especially not uk law. I could be wrong /disclaimer
2) No, you didn't. the title of your post was "ClimateGate: Sometimes it only takes a few hackers to bring down an ideology." I expressed disbelief and disappointment that you hopped on the 'lol, they must be hiding something' bandwagon. you then include a quote stating "We do now have hundreds of e-mails that give every appearance of [bad stuff]", an argument I can assume you are adopting. I disagree, stating that none of the links show any real illegal, conspiratorial, or fraudulent activity [bad stuff]. I then provide a quote from an actual scientist in that field, with every conceivable accreditation, addressing the point at hand and supporting my position that there is nothing there to "bring down" anything.... See More
3)I was quoting a scientist using RealClimate as an outlet of immediate availability. You may not take my opinion as one who studied paleoclimate change among other parts of his field with any regard, but at the end of the day, I speak the language, you don't, neither does WSJ, cbsnews, timesUK, spiegel, telegraph, or the san angelo standard times. you cited news outlets and political editorials with no insight into the science itself, just political agendas, so to pretend they understand what is being said is more than disingenuous.
3.5) "quotes that the entirety of the station count data is "meaningless."
To dismiss these as small is argue the scale of deception, not to deny deception. At the end of the day, the people you are defending are still liars, even if you were to be right (which it appears you are not)."
again, this is a language and context boundary. the quote doesn't say "its meaningless, lets throw it away". The fact that the revised models CAN make trends of the data WITHOUT selective exclusion testifies to that regardless of your quote mining. what the quote says in layman is "why are we doing this in IDL? its garbling a subset of our data. now we cant use it (and they don't, at least not in the paper the HARRY ReadME was for, that data is publicly available.). next time lets code it ourselves in a sensible language so we can be sure of our statistical analysis (IE error reporting)
4) wahhh...
5) You called it an ideology, not me. I don't think this should be political, as anyone who knows that data already knows that anthropogenic climate change incontrovertible, whether it fits your political beliefs or not. I used Palin as a similar example, in that the more rabid portions of the left were predicting doom and gloom for the conservative ticket because of all the skeletons she "surely" had in her digital closet. at the end of the day, there wasn't anything there. If you cant see the parallels I don't know what to tell you...
5.5) "The fact remains that we have a situation where people are":
"manipulating data" - No, the data is preserved, the presentation is data that has been processed to make it accessible to scientists outside the field (though not for layman) for publication in less field specific journals (science, nature, etc) but the data itself is still there, and publicly accessible. data reduction is not data deletion/alteration
"skewing trends" - No. you have yet to provide any quote or site with quotes that actually proves this.
"hiding declines" - No, sorry, but no. you're taking the quote out of context, and you know it.
"destroying records" - I'm not okay with this, even though its within their rights. yes it's easier than putting up with the crazies... who take quotes out of context rather than address the data, but I will agree with you that there are ethical concerns. Not that all crazies need to be answered, some are simply not worth the time, however for the sake of keeping the science clean and unquestionable, they should have waved their rights and thoroughly explained why they chose the route they did. if for no other reason than to cover their rears and remove any future doubt. That said, its not the data they were deleting, but interdepartmental communications. Anyone is free to recreate whatever thoughts that may have been lost that can be drawn from the data, provided they understand it. |
NERDA:
Here we go:
Really, it was explained to you? Because the last I checked, you were glibly advertising your complete ignorance of the UK FOIA.
But you are, indeed, wrong. IPCC data is compiled from CRU data, among others. IPCC data is not what we are dealing with. It was the CRU�s servers that were hacked. The data was contained on the CRU database, making it fair game for not only FOIA (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043391.htm#5) but EIR (http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/environmental_information_regulation/legislation_in_full.aspx ) CRU data remains CRU data. The IPCC uses the HadCrut record, but the record is officially the CRU�s � which is a government-funded body subject to FOIA and EIR. Also, the Harris emails are de-facto covered by FOIA / EIR.
As for the claim that they were all �at least� decade-old requests�please cite that. The fact of the matter is, you are again spouting rubbish. Jones was, in fact, consistently hassled by many people for climate data http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones#63704 the most recent requests taking place literally within months preceding this scandal. Here�s a Mar. 9th FOI investigation for East Anglia�s CRU. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/research_and_reports/foi_and_eir_caseload_snapshot_september_2009.pdf and here�s a May 11 request http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6203 ... See More
So how many requests DID Jones have? By his own email, dated Dec. 3, 2008:
[Regarding FOIA Requests] ��theVC is also aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn't know the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures.�
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt
But the best part? Even if you were RIGHT � which you are not � it would still be a violation of both FOIA and EIR 19-1 (which this would primarily fall under) to delete the information, regardless of jurisdiction(!), while a FOIA request is pending. (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043391.htm#19)
Additionally, they were not withholding data because of a protected data status, but a detested requestor status:
�When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions � one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about.�
There is no privilege in the UK�s FOIA (or ours, for that matter) to hold applicable information dependant upon political affiliation of the requestor. The FOI person determined the data eligible, and balked only when scrutinizing McIntyre.
2) �None of the links show any real illegal, conspiratorial, or fraudulent activity�
Then it appears you and the law have two very different views on what constitutes fraudulent activity. Deleting FOIA-pending emails is illegal and fraudulent activity. The same goes for EIR. Hiding declines, presenting data that you know to be, and I quote, �totally meaningless� is conspiratorial to the nth degree. There is not much more to be said here�if you plan to argue that such actions did not take place, you are welcome to do so. If you wish to say, however, that they are not conspiratorial, illegal or fraudulent, then there is no amount of citation (again, I notice your complete lack of any) that can help you.
3) Since when have CBS, NYT and The Spiegel been politically motivated against AGW? I cited them, in part, because they have a history of supporting AGW positions.
I�ve cited far more scientists than you have. The problem is, the scientists I have cited are committing large-scale fraud. I�m using their own words.
3.5) �The revised models CAN make trends of the data WITHOUT selective exclusion.�
Cite that and we can talk about it. I consider this an unsubstantiated claim.
4) I don�t know how to respond to �wahhh.� It�s a well-thought out and documented argument to counter my �quotes you have yet to refute.� I can only assume that your next reply will be of the same intellectual quality.
5) The difference is that quite a few skeletons were found in this particular closet. A supposedly �free and open� closet.
5.5) �No, the data is preserved�
Wrong, it has been deleted. We have gone over this. Jones has admitted to this.
I have linked many times to references of the loss and destruction of the original data.
Here�s a refresher: The original data was destroyed not only in the 80�s (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
All they have left is the adjusted data, and they can�t recursively determine the original data, because they have no clue what undocumented changes were actually made, and what the original status was:
�getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a
cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.�
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that.
just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
Also, data deletion (as I went over) extended into emails that were not publicly accessible, including multiple requests by Jones to colleagues to delete numerous data sets.
�data reduction is not data deletion/alteration�
Indeed, but data deletion/alteration is what is occurring.
I�ve provided proof in the form of the actual correspondence from the people manipulating the data! Why would you EVER want to �hide the decline?� Why would you wish to �make it up?�:
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have 
�No, sorry, but no. you're taking the quote out of context, and you know it.�
Put it in context for me, please. Forget the �trick� part that everyone is so concerned about. I�m concerned with the word �hide.� Please explain why X is being done to �hide� Y, and why Y should be �hidden.� Unlike �trick,� the word �hide� has a rather specific operative use.
�It�s not the data they were deleting, but interdepartmental communications.�
First, yes, it is the data that had been deleted and manipulated � I just demonstrated that. However, the communications in question were also covered under ERI. There is no really no excuse on any level for any of this happening.
If you choose to respond, please do so with more than your gut feeling. I�d especially like to see you back up some your more outlandish claims that I feel I�ve thoroughly dealt with."
NERDB:
| Quote: |
I will readily admit my knowledge of UK law is spotty, as is my knowledge of one-handed underwater basket weaving. upon the uploading of the CRU data to wikileaks last week I asked a friend attending law school in england whether they had a freedom of information law like we have in the US. the brief response was "no, our laws are a bit different" which I mistakenly interpreted as 'no, we don't'. I have since been answered in greater depth, with specific regard to the CRU case. again, the I'm-not-a-UK-lawyer disclaimer applies.
Firstly, there have been multiple FOI requests for data and departmental communications. Some have been denied because they were requested without paying the correct fees or following proper protocols. some have been delayed for the same reason they were filed, to annoy the other party, petitioning for more time is nothing new. the data is all available (though not all for free or with a license to distribute). the communications have until now been protected while the lawyers figure out whether uk FOI applies or not, as much of the funding of CRU is private grants blah blah... nobody knows what money was used for the server blah blah... Yeah, they are being evasive. I wont argue that. little wonder when you consider who they are up against, however as I said before, I don't think this is the right path to take. That said until a court says otherwise (and there is very little precedent in this particular area as far as my friends database searching can determine) its within their rights. I will ask about EIR domain, however I am limited by timezones...
Re claims of decade-old data. the Data requested, the raw stuff from the 80s claimed to be deleted for ever, was deleted from CRU tapes in 1998, prior to FOI and not covered by it's predecessor's act. I wont argue that requests have been made since, CA submits a FOI request every time anyone on the CRU team submits ANYTHING for publication, but since the data is already available through the publisher's protocols, most of the requests through FOI are dismissed under Section 21 of FOI (information accessible by other means). they still request it, in bad faith, KNOWING they wont get it by that path, but every time they request it an inspector comes out an hassles someone at CRU, so its not completely ineffective when you consider their motivation.... See More
Re "the best part" - yes, while the FOI request is pending. I see no retroactive clause for deletions prior to the passing of the law itself. I dont see it in EIR either, though I'll have to check.
You are trying to lump several deletions into one conspiracy.
The data deletion occurred as they moved and upgraded from tapes.
The email communication deletion, which again I will emphasize is probably wrong but not yet proven illegal, or even proven to have occurred, is another matter
The data deletion WOULDN'T be covered by FOI (or EIR I suspect) because the subset of data deleted WASN'T THEIR DATA. even if the data was still there, they wouldn't have the right to release it.
but here's the kicker, the data IS still there, just not with CRU, something even CA knows and has abused as readily as FOI requests. in fact if YOU wanted to buy a copy and fill out the required paper work, you could get access to it too at National Climatic Data Center (NOAA). Some of it is even freely available. and even if it were gone forever, the corrected data is still available, and the means of correction are included in the publications. How do you think McIntyre and McKitrick did their statistical refutation without the actual data?
I'll try to address your other points in a timely manner. forgive my piecemeal rebuttal. |
NERDA:
Again, nothing you have said is supported by any provided evidence. You have either deliberately chosen not to support it, or are unable to. I assume it is the ladder, as it is becoming customary with you.
(YOUSAID)�Firstly, there have been multiple FOI requests for data and departmental communications.�
That�s a direct contradiction from what you said previously, before I proved you wrong.... See More
(YOUSAID)�The data is all available (though not all for free or with a license to distribute).�
Prove that statement. I have showed that the data is not all available.
The CRU has issued a statement saying 95% of the original data is available. This is unsubstantiated, as they had already told others that that data was destroyed
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
Even *IF* the CRU had 95% of their data, though�they still would not be able to account for 5% of it. And that�s a BIG *if,* considering their previous admissions as to the data�s status and the level of trust they now appear to warrant.
But let�s look at their admission that they dumped the data:
Former CIRES director and professor of environmental studies Roger A. Pielke, Jr. just recently mused upon such an action:
�Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).�
(YOUSAID)�the communications have until now been protected while the lawyers figure out whether uk FOI applies or not,�
The requests to delete emails would indicate that, no, the communications have not been protected. This is not a Sarah Palin molehill. Jones is stepping down (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1) while an investigation goes into all of this.
(YOUSAID)That said until a court says otherwise (and there is very little precedent in this particular area as far as my friends database searching can determine) it�s within their rights.
Continue reading to see that, no, you may not delete �until a court says otherwise.� While arbitration is pending, it is illegal.
(Yousaid)�I wont argue that requests have been made since��
I seem to recall you doing just that.
I see no retroactive clause for deletions prior to the passing of the law itself.
Only because you are not looking. Section 46 FOIA: http://www.foi.gov.uk/reference/imprep/codemanrec.htm
9.9: If a record due for destruction is known to be the subject of a request for information, destruction should be delayed until disclosure has taken place or, if the authority has decided not to disclose the information, until the complaint and appeal provisions of the FOIA have been exhausted.
With FOIA appeals still underway, it was indeed illegal.
This was in the original bill, which was in effect long before the destruction of various requested records, including the obfuscation of data that AAAS fellow and UCAR scientists (and ubiquitously quoted AGW champion) Tom Wigley said was legitimate and should not be suppressed (but was):
From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:54:58 -0600
<x-flowed>
Phil,
Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers
that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW
at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=813&filename=1188557698.txt
CRU�s own Keith Briffa was miffed about what appeared to be the intentional use of incorrect numbers (http://www.groups.xorte.com/Re-CRU-email-some-of-the-series-that-make-up-the-Chinese-record-are-dubious-or,t,59719,8.html) in the same paper.
These emails are in response to Doug Keenan uncovering an active attempt to hide faulty Chinese station data by Phil Jones. Jones co-authored a paper in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 18: 309 (2001) that proves he knew the data was flawed before he used it. Wigley attests that they �must have known.�
Jones did not correct his article.
(YOUSAID)You are trying to lump several deletions into one conspiracy.
How many deletions will it take before it becomes a �conspiracy?�
I thought �several.� I found �several.�
How many do you need?
(YOUSAID)The data deletion occurred as they moved and upgraded from tapes.
Not according to you, Mr. �The data is all available.�
Choose one and stick with it. They either destroyed it or they didn�t. The CRU can�t even decide which.
---------
(YOUSAID)The email communication deletion, which again I will emphasize is probably wrong but not yet proven illegal, or even proven to have occurred..."
Innocent until proven guilty, yes. But so far the CRU has maintained the emails it has seen appear to be accurate. And yes, these emails include requests to delete. And when you factor in the fact that the emails in question � the ones Jones specifically requested colleagues to delete � were not found in their corresponding date, that means Jones could either be discussion emails that never existed, or they were deleted. Which is more likely?
Here is someone who knows a bit more than you do about UK regs:... See More
According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. �It�s quite naughty to do that,� said Ms. Moffatt.
Also, as I�ve already stated, the fact that they are CA means NOTHING.
�Another potential concern are Jones� emails stating that he convinced FOI officers not to release data to greenhouse skeptics because they planned to harm the university or setback climate science. �Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit,� Jones wrote in a 2007 email.
According to Moffatt, the U.K.�s FOI law is supposed to be �identity blind� meaning that requests should be judged on the merits, not who does the requesting.� http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/in-climate-hack.html
(YOUSAID)The data deletion WOULDN'T be covered by FOI (or EIR I suspect) because the subset of data deleted WASN'T THEIR DATA.
It was their data. Prove to me that it wasn�t. You keep making these ridiculous claims, and you�ve yet to prove a single one. They deleted their own data. They�ve said as much in their own words. I�ve linked as much to you. Cite this or retract it with apologies for insulting my intelligence.
(YOUSAID)�even if the data was still there, they wouldn't have the right to release it.�
And you, who admit to your ignorance of UK FOI law, know this how? Oh, by the citation you�ve provided! Got it.
While the right to release is being arbitrated, it is illegal to delete while FOIA/EIR is pending. Your point is moot. See previous point.
(YOUSAID)�the data IS still there, just not with CRU,�
Interesting definition of �still there.�
(YOUSAID)�you could get access to it too at National Climatic Data Center (NOAA).�
You might want to tell them that.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/source-table1.html
Find data of East Anglia / CRU origin anywhere in there.
By the way, that link was the proof Phil Jones provided to try to prove that the NOAA *HAD* the same data.
(http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/)
(YOUSAID)�the corrected data is still available, and the means of correction are included in the publications.�
Not according to the guy programming the corrections, remember?
Or Pielke, Jr.?
How quickly you forget statements like
�not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch.�
Or programmer Harry�s comments that the original data irretrievable.
(YOUSAID)How do you think McIntyre and McKitrick did their statistical refutation without the actual data?
Well, because I actually READ the refutations (unlike someone I know), I am well aware. They used data that was released by other bodies (mostly AGW supporters) that was directly contradictory (example: Hockey stick refutation), data that was admitted by Jones/Mann and others to be manipulated (example: post-60�s tree ring data) and data that they had collected themselves.
CONCLUSION:
I've cited and sourced UK Legal experts commenting on the illegality of even the *EMAIL* destruction. I've cited CRU climate experts internally acknowledging willfully manipulated data a-la Wang, with a suppression by Jones. I've cited statute dealing with deletion of FOI/EIR data under request/arbitration that leaves no doubt.
You've made statements that I've proven to be false, reneged on other comments (data deletion, for instance), refused to cite others that I challenged, and continued to rant without so much as presenting any citation or evidence for your claims, the vast majority of which I have directly refuted with hordes of evidence.
I await a reply where you DO address my points, hopefully with a form of proof greater than "I asked a friend." For someone who believes he is fighting for science, you sure value evidence poorly.
NERDB:
| Quote: |
I stopped providing sources the moment I realized I was feeding a troll, which occurred when you simultaneously "invalidated" an expert in the field in question (cuz his site is owned by the vast leftwing conspiracy! Oh Noes!) while posting nothing but editorials and hastily google'd uk law. The fact is ANY source I cite would fail to meet both your criteria of reliable and any understanding of scientific reality.
I'm not going to walk you through how to order data. That said you don't need to complete the order to see what sites are available and cross reference it to the sites used.
I'm not going to draw you a time line of when data was deleted, when laws were pasted, and when FOI requests were submitted.... See More
I'm not going to lecture you on the difference between decline in the divergence problem, which everyone reading Mann's paper already knows about and knows it would be inappropriate to include, and the multi-decadal decline climate deniers claim but never manage to justify beyond cherrypicking poorly worded summaries written for people who already have at least a rudimentary understanding of the material.
I'm not going to sit you down and force you to actually read to completion the articles you post in your defense, even though you might recognize the fallacy of "CRU deleted the data forever, because X says they admitted to deleting their copy of the data... therefore its gone forever"
We've reached the stage all of our arguments inevitably reach... arguing for the sake of arguing. You can reply if you want, but I wont let you bait me into wasting more time on this. |
NERDA:
At least ONE of us bothered googling UK law, *NAME*. I did it for you. I already knew what was in the UK FOIA, as well as an operative knowledge of the EIR. That�s why your complete lack of knowledge was so readily apparent to me. You were arguing things you knew nothing about�hmmm�sounds like arguing to argue...
"Stopped" providing sources? You never started providing them, other than a single biased link you ironically cited after making an argument to invalidate one of mine.
You are not going to "explain" away the claims you've made - specifically, the ones I've called out- because you cannot. ... See More
I identify a statement of yours and ask for proof. How easy would it be to back it up? You need only to cite where you got it from. Apparently, it's beyond your ability. I have little doubt that this is because you made it up or were miserably wrong, which is consistent with your other statement's I have identified and your admissions. This response of yours is certainly less than "addressing my other points in a timely manner," but falls in line with what I have expected from someone who has been stripped of their false air of authority on the subject. You are right about one thing, that we have reached the sake of arguing for the sake of arguing.
�But it is not I who is doing it.
You, *NAME*, continue to make ridiculous claims that I have asked you to qualify�MANY TIMES. Instead of doing so, you have shrugged of requests for the proof (much like the scientists you are defending) and merely continued to make more claims. You have the temerity to insult sources like the NYT and The Spiegel, while countering with none of your own. You�ve said that any source you cite will fail to meet my criteria, yet you�ve only revealed one � you lifted a statement taunting, among other things, the lack of a �follow-the-money� trail of bias. I quickly identified one. *I* have cited Scientists (far more than you have), internationally recognized news sources, legal experts, the LAWS THEMSELVES, the emails in question, Jones / Mann and sources THEY cited and many others. I�ve provided documentation for all my claims. You�ve provided�*gasp*�more claims!
It is not your citing that is being dismissed offhand for no reason, *NAME*. Indeed, you have no citing to dismiss! However, you certainly find it easy to dismiss the vast amounts of information I have provided for you because you don�t like it. Pot, meet kettle.
It�s not too late for you to stop arguing for the sake of arguing and actually attempt to make your case, but it is FAR too late for you to run away (without even Godwin�ing the topic) and pretend that you are doing so for any other than because you have been check-mated. I�m calling you out to �draw you a time line of when data was deleted� � because YOU made statements that I�ve refuted with evidence, but you still stand by them!
I�m demanding that you stand by the various unsubstantiated claims made. That is not unreasonable by any stretch. Your withholding, however, is.
Over one hundred years ago, a great writer once said �fear not those who argue but those dodge.� Was she not talking about your consistent refusal to back up your arguments, statements that *I* was trolling (ironic, considering who is spewing false and unverified statements without pause) and attempt to extricate yourself from the growing number of baseless statement�s you�ve felt compelled to make?
Run, *NAME*. Run from your dead argument � dead because you�ve refused to support it. Run from �biased� citations such as the actual law itself or the NYT, into that haven of neutrality, RC. Run from your broken arguments and abandoned assumptions. I�m sick and tired of dismissing them. You think you�re wasting time? It�s easy for you � you only write whatever comes to your mind, regardless of its accuracy. Some of us actually document our statements, *NAME*. It�s a trick I learned from J-School. No a �trick� I learned from the CRU. It takes more time and effort for me to respond to your compelling �wahhh�s with documented supporting evidence than it does for you to say whatever you want without worrying about proof, I assure you.
So go. Hopefully this encounter will wake you up to the fact that rhetoric, on its own, is nothing. To co-opt the phrase, �Facts or GTFO.� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't it funny how a thread restricted to mature and logical discussion of actual science, and prohibiting flame wars...magically vanquishes the likes of Rusty Shackleford, Mises and VisitorQ ? 
A big up to Big Bird  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Isn't it funny how a thread restricted to mature and logical discussion of actual science, and prohibiting flame wars...magically vanquishes the likes of Rusty Shackleford, Mises and VisitorQ ?
A big up to Big Bird |
Big bird is just behind on the issue and didn't even participate in the other thread. So who wants to waste time seriously addressing her non-points here? They've already been addressed and totally debunked elsewhere (as well as by ontheway in this thread). Big bird just believes all the lies and propaganda the mainstream media tells her. Nothing remarkable about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
Isn't it funny how a thread restricted to mature and logical discussion of actual science, and prohibiting flame wars...magically vanquishes the likes of Rusty Shackleford, Mises and VisitorQ ?
A big up to Big Bird |
Big bird is just behind on the issue and didn't even participate in the other thread. So who wants to waste time seriously addressing her non-points here? They've already been addressed and totally debunked elsewhere (as well as by ontheway in this thread). Big bird just believes all the lies and propaganda the mainstream media tells her. Nothing remarkable about that. |
You're guilty of the exact same thing. Why is your, or ontheway's mainstream media more reliable than her's?
Context of "trick" and "hide" aside, I believe the point of this thread was to discuss whether any of the information obtained by the email hack actually disproved current climate theory. I think it's safe to say that that's a resounding "no". To suggest that a few potentially crooked scientists points to a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth is flat-out paranoia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: How has the (climate) science been disproved? |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
Take, for example, the "trick" of combining instrumental data and tree-ring evidence in a single graph to "hide the decline" in temperatures over recent decades that would be suggested by a naive interpretation of the tree-ring record. The journalists repeating this phrase as an example of "scientists accused of manipulating their data" know perfectly well that the decline in question is a spurious artefact of the tree-ring data that has been documented in the literature for years, and that "trick" does not mean "deceit". They also know their readers, listeners and viewers won't know this: so why do they keep doing it?
|
Except that a "trick" in the email is clearly a "trick" intended to mislead and decieve the public. The context of the email makes it clear that "trick" means an attempt to hide the truth.
It also clear from the context of the email that "hide" is used to mean actually "hide" the truth. |
Newsweek addresses this too:
| Quote: |
Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that's not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we've noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.
Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it's a "trick" in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat�"a clever thing to do," as he put it � not a deception. What's hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn't track with thermometer measurements. East Anglia Research Professor Andrew Watson explained in an article in The Times of London:
Watson: Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that � for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.
|
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226398/page/2 |
Yes, Big Bird, many political hacks and their lackeys have carried water for the phony stats and repeated the lie that the terms "trick" and "hide" were used innocently. This argument doesn't stand up to the light of reality if you read the emails. |
Can you back up this statement with a better demonstration of how the argument does not stand up to 'the light of reality'...?
| Quote: |
| They meant it as a "trick" in the sense of being deceitful and they meant "hide" as in "cover up the truth." What they actually meant is clear and it corresponds exactly with what they did. |
Again, can you back up your statements?
| Quote: |
The reason they had to hide the decline is that the AGW scientists had a problem with their studies. They were trying to show past temperatures with models based on certain assumptions. We have no actual temperatures available from hundreds and thousands of years ago. So, some method of constructing such temperatures must be used. If the models are valid, then they should also be able to use them to predict temperatures for years in which we have actual data.
The models didn't work for years in which actual data exist, so Mann et al in the phony AGW "science" community - which is really just a group of money grubbing political hacks - just threw out the inconvenient data. Then, they could pretend that their phony numbers represented real science.
Of course we have also found that they threw out any numbers in the past and present that caused the real trend lines from the real numbers to differ from the trend lines that they wanted to present in their results. |
Yes, I know that this is what the skeptic bloggers are saying. But can you demonstrate that they did in fact throw out valid data, i.e. can you demonstrate that the tree-ring data does in fact correlate properly with thermometer measurements in recent decades? What information do you have that I don't? Please share.
Lastly, I was very interested in you sharing with me exactly who the 'real scientists' were, that you mentioned in another post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
Isn't it funny how a thread restricted to mature and logical discussion of actual science, and prohibiting flame wars...magically vanquishes the likes of Rusty Shackleford, Mises and VisitorQ ?
A big up to Big Bird |
Big bird is just behind on the issue and didn't even participate in the other thread. So who wants to waste time seriously addressing her non-points here? They've already been addressed and totally debunked elsewhere (as well as by ontheway in this thread). |
Really, ontheway has debunked what exactly?
| Quote: |
| Big bird just believes all the lies and propaganda the mainstream media tells her. Nothing remarkable about that. |
Now that's very interesting, because I subscribe daily to a Murdoch publication (with a conservative bias) that has given vast editorial space to the skeptics and the deniers over the many years I've been taking notice, and tends to favour the dissenters over those who accept the consensus. It also regularly seizes on any thing (however trivial or factually wrong) that might help create doubt about man-made climate change. So it seems I haven't succumbed to the 'lies and propaganda' of the mainstream newspaper I receive, after all.
Unfortunately, I also read science publications (not so mainstream), and I have indeed succumbed to their 'lies and propaganda.' The consensus is that global warming is taking place and it is very likely caused by human activity. 97% of climate scientists agree with this. That's thousands of scientists the world over. They claim that in recent years the evidence has hardened.
Now, I would love for them to be wrong. I would love for them to be absolutely wrong. And I would love for someone to come on here, and carefully and painstakingly show me how the many years of research (which has taken place all over the planet) is now clearly and demonstrably wrong. And if you can do that, you will leave me utterly delighted. Again, I invite posters to come here and demonstrate exactly how the hacked emails prove that global warming was just a leftwing fantasy - a clever conspiracy by tens of thousands of scientists, invented with the clear aim of siphoning off taxpayers' money for their phony research activities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Count - I can't be bothered to read your long posts. In fact, I doubt anyone can. So for the moment, you're rambling to yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
