The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[Bonzai]

No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

this is completely false.

Prove it.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

This again? The CRU isn't responsible for keeping all the world's climate change data. They gathered the data from the folks whose job it is to collect and store raw data, did what they needed to with it, and discarded it (over 20 years ago). However, the data that was not lost. There is an enormous amount of raw data available to conduct independent climate change research (in particular at the Global Historical Climatology Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Histor...atology_Network ). The GISS (NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) have made use of this data independently and found results that back up the CRU's findings.

 

[17seconds]

If anyone is interested here is a good article.

The misrepresentation of these emails is just another attack by the hard right.

Oh, well if Gore says so it must be true. I wonder if he's found manbearpig yet.

If you are already jumping to discredit it, then it must be contain something you do not want to be heard.

How am I jumping to discredit it? I said it must be true.

stop f###ing around

 

[DrJ]

The data and algorithms are subject to public scrutiny. Dodds hasn't released the algorithms used for weekly projections and the manual tweaks he might make but I'm still completely capable of scrutinizing his published results. The GISS incident shows that the anti AGW side can scrutinizing data without fishing expeditions.

Here's what McIntyre wrote again:

Well, my estimate of the impact on the US temperature series was about 0.18-0.19 deg C., a little bit more than Ruedy’s 0.15 deg C. My estimate added a small negative offset going into 2000 to the positive offset of about 0.15-0.16 after 2000 – I suspect that Ruedy is not counting both parts, thereby slightly minimizing the impact. However, I think that you’ll agree that my estimate of the impact of the impact was pretty good, given that I don’t have access to their particular black box.

Needless to say, they were totally unresponsive to my request for source code. They shouldn’t be surprised if they get an FOI request. I’ll post some more after I chance to cross-check their reply.

As to the impact on NH and global data, I’ve noted long before this exchange that the non-US data in GHCN looks more problematic to me than the US data and it would be really nice if surfacestations.org starting getting some international feedback. Ruedy’s reply was copied to Hansen and to Gavin Schmidt. I’m not sure what business it is of Gavin’s other than his “private capacity” involvement in a prominent blog.

This entry was written by

Steve McIntyre, posted on Aug 6, 2007 at 9:19 PM, filed under NASA (Hansen), Surface Record. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave

Here's a quote from him at Wiki:

My original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of “fixing” bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. According to any reasonable audit standards, one would conclude that the GISS software had failed this particular test. While GISS can (and has) patched the particular error that I reported to them, their patching hardly proves the merit of the GISS (and [united States Historical Climate Network]) adjustment procedures. These need to be carefully examined.

It's false that they are releasing the source code and algorithms they use to massage the data. And the extent of his scrutiny is without a doubt limited in light of this. He was able to find the error, but even his estimates of the impact of the error on their numbers was off because of the fact that they won't give up the source code. What is the basis for this? And you don't find the emails regarding how they will respond to FOI requests troubling in light of this? And why is Gavin Schmidt so involved in the email chains for both of these places?

Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I have posted. Algorithms and source code are not the same things.

When the source code is for the programs actually executing the algorithms, they are indeed one in the same. McIntyre notes there that he believes the discrepancy between his predictions and their numbers is due to them still not performing these calculations the way they say they are. But without the source code, no one can actually prove this. They're more than happy to divulge this information to other agencies though, as noted by Mann turning over his source code and data to CRU on those other experiments when requested and telling them to keep the "dirty laundry" secret and then refusing to release the same information to McIntyre. Obviously their refusal to release this has nothing to do with consultants and keeping the information private - just private from people they don't want to see and review it.

There's another piece on "the trick" where McIntyre suggests he found out what the trick Phil Jones was talking about was. I haven't read it entirely but it looks like they threw out all actual data for tree rings post 1960 since it didn't match their hypothesis, yet still showed the tree ring line on their graphs with faked information correlated to temperature.

This is some pretty serious stuff. How you guys can just brush this off as nothing is pretty incomprehensible.

 

[tommyboy]

No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

this is completely false.

Prove it.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

This again? The CRU isn't responsible for keeping all the world's climate change data. They gathered the data from the folks whose job it is to collect and store raw data, did what they needed to with it, and discarded it (over 20 years ago). However, the data that was not lost. There is an enormous amount of raw data available to conduct independent climate change research (in particular at the Global Historical Climatology Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Histor...atology_Network ). The GISS (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) have made use of this data independently and found results that back up the CRU's findings.

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

 

[DrJ]

The GISS (NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) have made use of this data independently and found results that back up the CRU's findings.

I'm really not certain this is all being done entirely independently like you guys suggest. It seems from these emails they feel they are on the same team and that this is a coordinated effort.

 

[Guest]

Here's your basic problem.

This....

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

does not disprove this....

No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

any more than saying that one teenage boy driving 95 mph and then hitting a tree proves that all teenage boys are bad drivers or that finding a worm in the apple that you bought at your corner store means that all apples in the world are fundamentally inedible.You use a lot of words and innuendo, but that's basically what you're trying to say.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's your basic problem.

This....

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

does not disprove this....

No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

any more than saying that one teenage boy driving 95 mph and then hitting a tree proves that all teenage boys are bad drivers or that finding a worm in the apple that you bought at your corner store means that all apples in the world are fundamentally inedible.You use a lot of words and innuendo, but that's basically what you're trying to say.

There are only three main data sets. We know that one is corrupt and the other two are fairly close to matching it. If one data set has been corrupted by politics and money, it is not outlandish to think that the other two sets are corrupted by politics and money. The raw data needs to be evaluated. So far the few analysis I have seen of people looking at the raw data shows that the actual data shows a flat trend, but the manipulated data shows a substantial warming trend.

 

[Bonzai]

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon. You're just playing word games for effect. Would it have been nice if the CRU had anticipated how highly political climate change research would become in 20 years and kept that data so that an army of fatmouths didn't have a talking point? Yes, but they didn't do anything unethical or damaging to the research of climate change here. As far as the data coming out of GISS being corrupted... please. Simply because they were corrected, that doestn't mean that they're intentionally massaging data. Making a mistake isn't a sign of a conspiracy. And really, that's the whole point about the protectiveness from the CRU. They know that any future mistakes that might be pointed out by others outside the scientific community (particularly those funded by oil companies) will simply be used to sabotage their research by blowing said mistakes or errors out of proportion. Their "audits" aren't done in the spirit of bettering our understanding of the world, they're done to support political maneuvers and give material to the propaganda the Jim11s of the world love to consume.

 

[Bonzai]

Here's your basic problem.

This....

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

does not disprove this....

No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

any more than saying that one teenage boy driving 95 mph and then hitting a tree proves that all teenage boys are bad drivers or that finding a worm in the apple that you bought at your corner store means that all apples in the world are fundamentally inedible.You use a lot of words and innuendo, but that's basically what you're trying to say.

There are only three main data sets. We know that one is corrupt and the other two are fairly close to matching it. If one data set has been corrupted by politics and money, it is not outlandish to think that the other two sets are corrupted by politics and money. The raw data needs to be evaluated. So far the few analysis I have seen of people looking at the raw data shows that the actual data shows a flat trend, but the manipulated data shows a substantial warming trend.

Dude, c'mon..

 

[jon_mx]

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon. You're just playing word games for effect. Would it have been nice if the CRU had anticipated how highly political climate change research would become in 20 years and kept that data so that an army of fatmouths didn't have a talking point? Yes, but they didn't do anything unethical or damaging to the research of climate change here.

As far as the data coming out of GISS being corrupted... please. Simply because they were corrected, that doestn't mean that they're intentionally massaging data. Making a mistake isn't a sign of a conspiracy. And really, that's the whole point about the protectiveness from the CRU. They know that any future mistakes that might be pointed out by others outside the scientific community (particularly those funded by oil companies) will simply be used to sabotage their research by blowing said mistakes or errors out of proportion. Their "audits" aren't done in the spirit of bettering our understanding of the world, they're done to support political maneuvers and give material to the propaganda the Jim11s of the world love to consume.

You are making a silly distinction. They did throw away the raw data they gathered. Sure the raw data may exist, but it is not accessible. Shoot, CRU claims they signed confidentiality agreements, which was one of their excuses in the past for not disclosing it. Of course they lost those agreements.

Climate change data dumped

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

 

[Bonzai]

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon. You're just playing word games for effect. Would it have been nice if the CRU had anticipated how highly political climate change research would become in 20 years and kept that data so that an army of fatmouths didn't have a talking point? Yes, but they didn't do anything unethical or damaging to the research of climate change here.

As far as the data coming out of GISS being corrupted... please. Simply because they were corrected, that doestn't mean that they're intentionally massaging data. Making a mistake isn't a sign of a conspiracy. And really, that's the whole point about the protectiveness from the CRU. They know that any future mistakes that might be pointed out by others outside the scientific community (particularly those funded by oil companies) will simply be used to sabotage their research by blowing said mistakes or errors out of proportion. Their "audits" aren't done in the spirit of bettering our understanding of the world, they're done to support political maneuvers and give material to the propaganda the Jim11s of the world love to consume.

You are making a silly distinction. They did throw away the raw data they gathered. Sure the raw data may exist, but it is not accessible. Shoot, CRU claims they signed confidentiality agreements, which was one of their excuses in the past for not disclosing it. Of course they lost those agreements.

Climate change data dumped

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

They signed agreements because the data didn't belong to them. It wasn't theirs to release. Can you explain to me the significance of the CRU throwing out that data 20 years ago? What do you think the impact of that is to the overall research around the world on climate change? Do you think that the actual impact is representative of the perceived impact someone who may not be familiar with the debate may take away from seeing the headline "CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS DUMP RAW DATA"?

 

[jon_mx]

They signed agreements because the data didn't belong to them. It wasn't theirs to release. Can you explain to me the significance of the CRU throwing out that data 20 years ago? What do you think the impact of that is to the overall research around the world on climate change? Do you think that the actual impact is representative of the perceived impact someone who may not be familiar with the debate may take away from seeing the headline "CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS DUMP RAW DATA"?

It is friggin old temperature data, not trade secrets. No reason what so ever that such data should have agreements. The fact they can't produced them probably means CRU was lying, again. Yes, the significance is that we can't verify any of the trends CRU says that exists. We are trusting that the manipulation they did was honest scientific adjustments. I am not sure why temperature data has to be adjusted anyways, but they were. If anything temperatures should have been adjusted downward to compensate for urbanization effects.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's your basic problem.

This....

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

does not disprove this....

No data was controlled, tampered with, massaged, or lost. Even if all the research at the CRU was deemed flawed, other institutions have independently replicated their work.

any more than saying that one teenage boy driving 95 mph and then hitting a tree proves that all teenage boys are bad drivers or that finding a worm in the apple that you bought at your corner store means that all apples in the world are fundamentally inedible.You use a lot of words and innuendo, but that's basically what you're trying to say.

There are only three main data sets. We know that one is corrupt and the other two are fairly close to matching it. If one data set has been corrupted by politics and money, it is not outlandish to think that the other two sets are corrupted by politics and money. The raw data needs to be evaluated. So far the few analysis I have seen of people looking at the raw data shows that the actual data shows a flat trend, but the manipulated data shows a substantial warming trend.

Dude, c'mon..

c'mon what? Six months ago it would have been a crazy idea to suggest that CRU was as corrupt as they are. When politics and science are combined, corruption occurs. Anyone who does not see the politics in the science of global warming is in denial

 

[Bonzai]

They signed agreements because the data didn't belong to them. It wasn't theirs to release.

Can you explain to me the significance of the CRU throwing out that data 20 years ago? What do you think the impact of that is to the overall research around the world on climate change? Do you think that the actual impact is representative of the perceived impact someone who may not be familiar with the debate may take away from seeing the headline "CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS DUMP RAW DATA"?

It is friggin old temperature data, not trade secrets. No reason what so ever that such data should have agreements. The fact they can't produced them probably means CRU was lying, again. Yes, the significance is that we can't verify any of the trends CRU says that exists. We are trusting that the manipulation they did was honest scientific adjustments. I am not sure why temperature data has to be adjusted anyways, but they were. If anything temperatures should have been adjusted downward to compensate for urbanization effects.

We can verify their claims by using the myriad sources of raw data out there and doing our own experiements. This has already been done by other agencies. The CRU didn't "cover their tracks" by destroying all the raw data in the world on climate change. Plus, if we were simply relying on the CRU completely, they could've just made up the raw data used in their models anyway, right? "You want some raw data guys? Here ya go!" /CRUSince that's not the case, we have them right where we want them. As per you last couple sentences, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[jon_mx]

We can verify their claims by using the myriad sources of raw data out there and doing our own experiements. This has already been done by other agencies. The CRU didn't "cover their tracks" by destroying all the raw data in the world on climate change. Plus, if we were simply relying on the CRU completely, they could've just made up the raw data used in their models anyway, right? "You want some raw data guys? Here ya go!" /CRU

Since that's not the case, we have them right where we want them. As per you last couple sentences, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

What sources of raw data???? NASA does not release there raw data either. What the heck is wrong with climate science? It is crazy. It really is. How do you know why they destroyed their raw data??? Now it is going to take three years for CRU to recreate what they destroyed. They just can't make up raw data. All it would take is one weather station to look at the made up data and expose the lies. You seem to be the naive one here. Raw data is essential for scientific review.

 

[Bonzai]

We can verify their claims by using the myriad sources of raw data out there and doing our own experiements. This has already been done by other agencies. The CRU didn't "cover their tracks" by destroying all the raw data in the world on climate change. Plus, if we were simply relying on the CRU completely, they could've just made up the raw data used in their models anyway, right? "You want some raw data guys? Here ya go!" /CRU

Since that's not the case, we have them right where we want them. As per you last couple sentences, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

What sources of raw data???? NASA does not release there raw data either. What the heck is wrong with climate science? It is crazy. It really is. How do you know why they destroyed their raw data??? Now it is going to take three years for CRU to recreate what they destroyed. They just can't make up raw data. All it would take is one weather station to look at the made up data and expose the lies. You seem to be the naive one here. Raw data is essential for scientific review.

Umm...

 

[jon_mx]

We can verify their claims by using the myriad sources of raw data out there and doing our own experiements. This has already been done by other agencies. The CRU didn't "cover their tracks" by destroying all the raw data in the world on climate change. Plus, if we were simply relying on the CRU completely, they could've just made up the raw data used in their models anyway, right? "You want some raw data guys? Here ya go!" /CRU

Since that's not the case, we have them right where we want them. As per you last couple sentences, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

What sources of raw data???? NASA does not release there raw data either. What the heck is wrong with climate science? It is crazy. It really is. How do you know why they destroyed their raw data??? Now it is going to take three years for CRU to recreate what they destroyed. They just can't make up raw data. All it would take is one weather station to look at the made up data and expose the lies. You seem to be the naive one here. Raw data is essential for scientific review.

Umm...

Ummm, what? Raw data is not easily assessable, but the people that run the stations still have them. CRU spent decades and millions of dollars collecting the data and then simply destroyed it. Because the data still exists, CRU can't simply make up numbers.

 

[Bonzai]

We can verify their claims by using the myriad sources of raw data out there and doing our own experiements. This has already been done by other agencies. The CRU didn't "cover their tracks" by destroying all the raw data in the world on climate change. Plus, if we were simply relying on the CRU completely, they could've just made up the raw data used in their models anyway, right? "You want some raw data guys? Here ya go!" /CRU

Since that's not the case, we have them right where we want them. As per you last couple sentences, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

What sources of raw data???? NASA does not release there raw data either. What the heck is wrong with climate science? It is crazy. It really is. How do you know why they destroyed their raw data??? Now it is going to take three years for CRU to recreate what they destroyed. They just can't make up raw data. All it would take is one weather station to look at the made up data and expose the lies. You seem to be the naive one here. Raw data is essential for scientific review.

Umm...

Ummm, what? Raw data is not easily assessable, but the people that run the stations still have them. CRU spent decades and millions of dollars collecting the data and then simply destroyed it. Because the data still exists, CRU can't simply make up numbers.

I was saying that if you were so untrusting of the CRU, why would you have taken their word for the data that they amassed in the first place? I mean, wouldn't a good skeptic be checking with the originators of the raw data anyway? In the skeptic's mind, weren't those decades and millions of dollars wasted anyway, even if the CRU had kept the data? We couldn't have just assumed that they had amassed that data appropriately, could we have?My suggested antidote to this paranoia was that the data exists independently, and that they could be called on it, which you turned around and reprinted and somehow tried to use against me. Bizarre.

Plus, how did the circle of twelve not think to bring the weather stations in on the conspiracy? For shame.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When the source code is for the programs actually executing the algorithms, they are indeed one in the same. McIntyre notes there that he believes the discrepancy between his predictions and their numbers is due to them still not performing these calculations the way they say they are. But without the source code, no one can actually prove this. ...

Neither of these statements are true.

 

[jon_mx]

I was saying that if you were so untrusting of the CRU, why would you have taken their word for the data that they amassed in the first place? I mean, wouldn't a good skeptic be checking with the originators of the raw data anyway? In the skeptic's mind, weren't those decades and millions of dollars wasted anyway, even if the CRU had kept the data? We couldn't have just assumed that they had amassed that data appropriately, could we have?My suggested antidote to this paranoia was that the data exists independently, and that they could be called on it, which you turned around and reprinted and somehow tried to use against me. Bizarre.Plus, how did the circle of twelve not think to bring the weather stations in on the conspiracy? For shame.

My crazy conspiracy theory which sounded nuts when I first put it out, is about 33% exposed from these emails. It really takes only a few of the top people at the IPCC to pull it off. No reason to involve peons running the weather station when you can just pretend the data is somehow confidential and no one seems to raise a brow. I doubt it ever gets fully exposed, but I would hope that there is some house cleaning and demands for more open data so it can be scrutinized by more people and not manipulated by a few in secret.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There is a reason the rest of the world bilks Americans out of billions of dollars every year through internet scams. Americans will believe anything and most are not capable of independent thought.

You are projecting again.

 

[tommyboy]

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon.

yes they threw away the raw data. They kept the adjusted data.here you go.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

function slideshowPopUp(url) { pictureGalleryPopupPic(url); return false; }

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

You obviously haven't read a ####### thing about this story and just want to spout off utter nonsense.

 

[tommyboy]

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon. You're just playing word games for effect. Would it have been nice if the CRU had anticipated how highly political climate change research would become in 20 years and kept that data so that an army of fatmouths didn't have a talking point? Yes, but they didn't do anything unethical or damaging to the research of climate change here. As far as the data coming out of GISS being corrupted... please. Simply because they were corrected, that doestn't mean that they're intentionally massaging data. Making a mistake isn't a sign of a conspiracy. And really, that's the whole point about the protectiveness from the CRU. They know that any future mistakes that might be pointed out by others outside the scientific community (particularly those funded by oil companies) will simply be used to sabotage their research by blowing said mistakes or errors out of proportion. Their "audits" aren't done in the spirit of bettering our understanding of the world, they're done to support political maneuvers and give material to the propaganda the Jim11s of the world love to consume.

science is just one series of mistakes being double checked by other scientists to see if mistakes were made, repeatedly, so that eventually, the research provides workable hypotheses with few mistakes that accurately explain ideas. If you hide your mistakes in your research and don't let anybody double check your work, you aren't practicing science.

 

[Guest]

science is just one series of mistakes being double checked by other scientists to see if mistakes were made, repeatedly, so that eventually, the research provides workable hypotheses with few mistakes that accurately explain ideas. If you hide your mistakes in your research and don't let anybody double check your work, you aren't practicing science.

You're one to talk.Given your posting history, you're barely practicing Internet Gadfly.

 

[Guest]

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon.

yes they threw away the raw data. They kept the adjusted data.here you go.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

function slideshowPopUp(url) { pictureGalleryPopupPic(url); return false; }

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

You obviously haven't read a ####### thing about this story and just want to spout off utter nonsense.

You obviously don't understand the difference between their raw data and the raw data and just want to spout off utter nonsense.

 

[tommyboy]

science is just one series of mistakes being double checked by other scientists to see if mistakes were made, repeatedly, so that eventually, the research provides workable hypotheses with few mistakes that accurately explain ideas. If you hide your mistakes in your research and don't let anybody double check your work, you aren't practicing science.

You're one to talk.Given your posting history, you're barely practicing Internet Gadfly.

that's all you got?

 

[tommyboy]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-...at-darwin-zero/

article calls into question methodology for determining last 150 year temps by GHCN, CRU and NASA. a bit technical but quite interesting.

 

[Guest]

science is just one series of mistakes being double checked by other scientists to see if mistakes were made, repeatedly, so that eventually, the research provides workable hypotheses with few mistakes that accurately explain ideas. If you hide your mistakes in your research and don't let anybody double check your work, you aren't practicing science.

You're one to talk.Given your posting history, you're barely practicing Internet Gadfly.

that's all you got?

Given your posting history, that's all I need.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

There are some in this thread that appear to be well versed in this subject. Whether they are, or have just used google, I do not know. Certainly some interesting links in here.

There are others in here who definately are not listening or learning, merely entrenched supporters of ideologies. Interesting in that they seem evenly distributed on both sides of the argument. In my experience if one is not open to pursuasion they are poor at persuasion. Joust on. I am amused.

 

[moleculo]

If the science is as certain, stable, and infallible as has been claimed, it can withstand public scrutiny. All of it - not just the outputs, but the nuts and bolts of the source code.The public paid for it, so IMO the public has a right to fact-check it, debate it, question it's accuracy, test it's limitations and assumptions, and verify the results. Even the big oil companies deserve a shot to poke holes in it - if it's settled, no biggie, right?Gore et al. compare AGW's certainty to gravity - I'm pretty sure Newton would be ok with Boeing trying to disprove it.

You support allowing inmates unlimited access to the courts also, correct? Because that is what you are demanding. It is not a reasonable request. If you believe that the AGW ideas are wrong come up with a better idea using science. Subscribe to some sources of data and do the work.

that is not at all what I am demanding. While inmates should not have unlimited access to the courts, they are allowed to appeal, no?I'm not saying that the CRU or GISS guys have to sit down with each and every doubter and explain what they are doing and why, but if these guys are as good as the diplomas on their walls say they are, they have already documented each and every but of data manipulation already so it really shouldn't be a big deal.You are basically saying that these guys are exempt from showing their work, but we should enact massive costly legislation because...well, they're scientists and therefore they know more than we do. I say that's BS. any 101-level science class preaches showing your work - it's pretty fundamental.To further the court analogy, what we have today is a defendant who has been convicted on data which may (or may not) have been tampered with, but is not allowed a judicial review. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what is supposed to happen if evidence presented during a trial was later found to be less authoritative than originally declared, but it seems to me that we must at least consider the degree of tampering. Again - all of the "climategate" may simply end up being a result of scientists behaving badly, but IMO there is reasonable suspicion to examine the state of the evidence before we enact costly legislation. That's all I'm asking for, and that's all I've been saying all along.

 

[Bonzai]

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon. You're just playing word games for effect. Would it have been nice if the CRU had anticipated how highly political climate change research would become in 20 years and kept that data so that an army of fatmouths didn't have a talking point? Yes, but they didn't do anything unethical or damaging to the research of climate change here. As far as the data coming out of GISS being corrupted... please. Simply because they were corrected, that doestn't mean that they're intentionally massaging data. Making a mistake isn't a sign of a conspiracy. And really, that's the whole point about the protectiveness from the CRU. They know that any future mistakes that might be pointed out by others outside the scientific community (particularly those funded by oil companies) will simply be used to sabotage their research by blowing said mistakes or errors out of proportion. Their "audits" aren't done in the spirit of bettering our understanding of the world, they're done to support political maneuvers and give material to the propaganda the Jim11s of the world love to consume.

science is just one series of mistakes being double checked by other scientists to see if mistakes were made, repeatedly, so that eventually, the research provides workable hypotheses with few mistakes that accurately explain ideas. If you hide your mistakes in your research and don't let anybody double check your work, you aren't practicing science.

Yes, science is never settled. That's why the research done by the CRU has been repeatedly double checked by scientists across the globe. However, there's a difference between replicating research in an attempt to better understand our world, and people not qualified to replicate the research (again, usually funded by oil companies) wanting to "audit" the research in an attempt to find some talking point or fuel propoganda. Those points in mind, I understand the CRU's protectiveness of their work. However, I don't condone all the behavior in the emails. They should've handled these folks differently. Still, their behavior has nothing to do with the validity of their research.

 

[moleculo]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-...at-darwin-zero/

article calls into question methodology for determining last 150 year temps by GHCN, CRU and NASA. a bit technical but quite interesting.

this is a good article. I'd like to hear it refuted. This gets at the heart of why examining the raw data and the algorithms must necessarily be open for review. It goes deeper though...if Dr. A fudged the data as this article claims to show a warming trend, and that data is shared with Dr. B who creates a computer model to simulate the earth, Dr. B will use that data to calibrate and test his model. When his model responds per the data from Dr. A, he believes his model is accurate. in this manner, Dr. B's model is corrupt through no fault of his own.

 

[tommyboy]

you asked me to prove that they didn't tamper or lose data (among other things you wrote), I did that in regards to the CRU which is who you were referring to in your claim. We weren't talking about the GHCN, were we? Besides, GHCN data is not raw data, it is normalized. They run algorithms on the data and fill in gaps etc...to compensate for variable readings and unreported station raw data. What the CRU did was throw away the raw data. I don't know why, and it certainly doesn't matter, but the fact is they did do what you said they didn't and they admitted so. The data coming out of GISS has also been shown to be corrupted in some cases and they have issued some corrections, simply because some skeptics called them on it. I read an article today that showed how the GHCN data is manipulated to show artificial warming over the last 50 years that doesn't really exist (at least for northern Australia, in this case). To say I'm skeptical of the CRU et al is an understatement. Even if everything they did is accurate, how they went about doing it was highly unethical in science.

Yes, the CRU threw away data they had gathered from various sources. However, they didn't thow away the raw data. They didn't throw away the raw data that research of climate change is built upon. You're just playing word games for effect. Would it have been nice if the CRU had anticipated how highly political climate change research would become in 20 years and kept that data so that an army of fatmouths didn't have a talking point? Yes, but they didn't do anything unethical or damaging to the research of climate change here. As far as the data coming out of GISS being corrupted... please. Simply because they were corrected, that doestn't mean that they're intentionally massaging data. Making a mistake isn't a sign of a conspiracy. And really, that's the whole point about the protectiveness from the CRU. They know that any future mistakes that might be pointed out by others outside the scientific community (particularly those funded by oil companies) will simply be used to sabotage their research by blowing said mistakes or errors out of proportion. Their "audits" aren't done in the spirit of bettering our understanding of the world, they're done to support political maneuvers and give material to the propaganda the Jim11s of the world love to consume.

science is just one series of mistakes being double checked by other scientists to see if mistakes were made, repeatedly, so that eventually, the research provides workable hypotheses with few mistakes that accurately explain ideas. If you hide your mistakes in your research and don't let anybody double check your work, you aren't practicing science.

Yes, science is never settled. That's why the research done by the CRU has been repeatedly double checked by scientists across the globe. However, there's a difference between replicating research in an attempt to better understand our world, and people not qualified to replicate the research (again, usually funded by oil companies) wanting to "audit" the research in an attempt to find some talking point or fuel propoganda. Those points in mind, I understand the CRU's protectiveness of their work. However, I don't condone all the behavior in the emails. They should've handled these folks differently. Still, their behavior has nothing to do with the validity of their research.

i understand human nature and ego and not wanting others to disprove something you invested time and energy into, or throw potshots at your hard earned research. Yet, this is the nature of hypotheses and research and science. When you claim "people not qualified" you are making quite a blanket statement. Surely some skeptics are qualified, many have PhD's. When you claim "usually funded by oil companies" you are making another blanket statement, furthermore those same oil companies support what you would call "legitimate" climate research. It may surprise you to learn that CRU sought funding from Shell Oil. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/clim...il-for-support/and yes behavior affects the validity of research by calling into question the moral high ground that science claims to attain. By the same argument you use the validity of science to back up your claims yet when science is shown to be done poorly you fail to acknowledge that some, maybe many, would view that as problematic for the quality of results given.

 

[jon_mx]

Yes, science is never settled. That's why the research done by the CRU has been repeatedly double checked by scientists across the globe. However, there's a difference between replicating research in an attempt to better understand our world, and people not qualified to replicate the research (again, usually funded by oil companies) wanting to "audit" the research in an attempt to find some talking point or fuel propoganda. Those points in mind, I understand the CRU's protectiveness of their work. However, I don't condone all the behavior in the emails. They should've handled these folks differently. Still, their behavior has nothing to do with the validity of their research.

So only a select few true believers are qualified to review data??? Yes it has every thing to do with the validity of their research. If their methods to manipulate data can not be fully disclosed and justified, it is ridiculous for anyone to simply accept their results. Spare me the old BS line about oil money. Oil money ain't crap compared to the 99.99% of the funding that comes from other sources like the government that really corrupts the science. Big money from oil companies is like $50K here, $50K there. The billions of dollars governments throw at global warming dwarfs the money Big Oil spends. If you are in it for money, being part of the pro-global warming fear monger crowd is the only way to go. There a lot of well qualified skeptics like MIT's Lindzen. To say they must protect their data so it is not audited by people who are not qualified is just utter nonsense. Science must be able to stand up to the scrutiny of skeptics or it is not really science.

 

[jon_mx]

In my opinion, the climategate scandal is considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-...at-darwin-zero/

article calls into question methodology for determining last 150 year temps by GHCN, CRU and NASA. a bit technical but quite interesting.

this is a good article. I'd like to hear it refuted. This gets at the heart of why examining the raw data and the algorithms must necessarily be open for review. It goes deeper though...if Dr. A fudged the data as this article claims to show a warming trend, and that data is shared with Dr. B who creates a computer model to simulate the earth, Dr. B will use that data to calibrate and test his model. When his model responds per the data from Dr. A, he believes his model is accurate. in this manner, Dr. B's model is corrupt through no fault of his own.

The article hand picks a monitoring station where the published methodology doesn't really work that well (5 neighboring locations are not all that close) to try to call into question that methodology for all other stations. Again, if this guy wants to practice science then repeat the exercise he does in the beginning of the article on the data with the a few thousand other records and build his own better global dataset.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So only a select few true believers are qualified to review data??? ...

You do realize that this is your position. That only the few "skeptics" are qualified to review this in order to determine the truth and not the thousands (millions?) of scientists who work with this every day.

 

[jon_mx]

So only a select few true believers are qualified to review data??? ...

You do realize that this is your position. That only the few "skeptics" are qualified to review this in order to determine the truth and not the thousands (millions?) of scientists who work with this every day.

I think ALL scientist should be allowed to review the data. There are not thousands of scientists who have seen and reviewed the raw temperature data. Yes there are thousands of honest scientist doing good honest work on climate change. But there are a few dubious areas in which no dissent is allowed and the source data suspiciously kept secret. This needs to be opened up to all scientists. That is my position, not the straw man that you have drawn up. It just takes a few small tweaks in the temperature data and a few bad assumptions in the computer models (such as the grossly overestimated positive feedback mechanisms which multiply the effects of CO2), and the whole theory is hopelessly corrupted in which a bunch of outlandish predictions are made in an attempt to influence the politics.

 

[Gigantomachia]

If you're going to counter, at least do so honestly. He didn't say no effect, he said an infinitely insignificant effect.

I heard him, and infinity insignificant is an opinion, not a fact. If anything, the facts point the other direction.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100k.htmlwell to be true maybe I should have said "very" insignificant.

Your link does not prove your claim, in fact, you should read the disclaimer at the bottom.Nevertheless, the facts still point to a steady climb in global temperature ever since the rise of the industrial age. This might be a mere coincidence, but if so that is one hell of an interesting coincidence that just so happens to coincide with the rapid deforestation, paving over wetlands and air pollution that followed in its wake.

But we can keep denying the evidence, hell, that ideology has worked for religion for centuries.

 

[Gigantomachia]

So only a select few true believers are qualified to review data??? ...

You do realize that this is your position. That only the few "skeptics" are qualified to review this in order to determine the truth and not the thousands (millions?) of scientists who work with this every day.

I think ALL scientist should be allowed to review the data. There are not thousands of scientists who have seen and reviewed the raw temperature data. Yes there are thousands of honest scientist doing good honest work on climate change. But there are a few dubious areas in which no dissent is allowed and the source data suspiciously kept secret. This needs to be opened up to all scientists. That is my position, not the straw man that you have drawn up. It just takes a few small tweaks in the temperature data and a few bad assumptions in the computer models (such as the grossly overestimated positive feedback mechanisms which multiply the effects of CO2), and the whole theory is hopelessly corrupted in which a bunch of outlandish predictions are made in an attempt to influence the politics.

What evidence do you offer to support your opinion?

 

[jon_mx]

So only a select few true believers are qualified to review data??? ...

You do realize that this is your position. That only the few "skeptics" are qualified to review this in order to determine the truth and not the thousands (millions?) of scientists who work with this every day.

I think ALL scientist should be allowed to review the data. There are not thousands of scientists who have seen and reviewed the raw temperature data. Yes there are thousands of honest scientist doing good honest work on climate change. But there are a few dubious areas in which no dissent is allowed and the source data suspiciously kept secret. This needs to be opened up to all scientists. That is my position, not the straw man that you have drawn up. It just takes a few small tweaks in the temperature data and a few bad assumptions in the computer models (such as the grossly overestimated positive feedback mechanisms which multiply the effects of CO2), and the whole theory is hopelessly corrupted in which a bunch of outlandish predictions are made in an attempt to influence the politics.

What evidence do you offer to support your opinion?

It is not an opinion, it is fact. CRU has already admitted this data was destroyed decades ago due to limited storage capability available in the 1980's (one of many lame excuses). So nobody could have possibly seen this data and let alone reviewed it because it hasn't existed for nearly 30 years and no one has even raised a brow. CRU has stonewalled freedom of information requests for over a decade from skeptics and non-skeptics alike, and just now the truth is coming out and only because of leaked files. The idea that this data has been thoroughly reviewed is a sham.As far as the other parts, that opinion is from Richard Lindzen one of the leading experts on atmospheric science from MIT. He has been published hundreds of times in numerous scientific journals. Here is one of his latest articles from the WSJ.

 

[Gigantomachia]

So only a select few true believers are qualified to review data??? ...

You do realize that this is your position. That only the few "skeptics" are qualified to review this in order to determine the truth and not the thousands (millions?) of scientists who work with this every day.

I think ALL scientist should be allowed to review the data. There are not thousands of scientists who have seen and reviewed the raw temperature data. Yes there are thousands of honest scientist doing good honest work on climate change. But there are a few dubious areas in which no dissent is allowed and the source data suspiciously kept secret. This needs to be opened up to all scientists. That is my position, not the straw man that you have drawn up. It just takes a few small tweaks in the temperature data and a few bad assumptions in the computer models (such as the grossly overestimated positive feedback mechanisms which multiply the effects of CO2), and the whole theory is hopelessly corrupted in which a bunch of outlandish predictions are made in an attempt to influence the politics.

What evidence do you offer to support your opinion?

It is not an opinion, it is fact. CRU has already admitted this data was destroyed decades ago due to limited storage capability available in the 1980's (one of many lame excuses). So nobody could have possibly seen this data and let alone reviewed it because it hasn't existed for nearly 30 years and no one has even raised a brow. CRU has stonewalled freedom of information requests for over a decade from skeptics and non-skeptics alike, and just now the truth is coming out and only because of leaked files. The idea that this data has been thoroughly reviewed is a sham.As far as the other parts, that opinion is from Richard Lindzen one of the leading experts on atmospheric science from MIT. He has been published hundreds of times in numerous scientific journals. Here is one of his latest articles from the WSJ.

I guess you don't understand how science functions. The data is retrievable, the fact you don't understand that simply shows you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Guest]

So only a select few true believers are qualified to review data??? ...

You do realize that this is your position. That only the few "skeptics" are qualified to review this in order to determine the truth and not the thousands (millions?) of scientists who work with this every day.

I think ALL scientist should be allowed to review the data. There are not thousands of scientists who have seen and reviewed the raw temperature data. Yes there are thousands of honest scientist doing good honest work on climate change. But there are a few dubious areas in which no dissent is allowed and the source data suspiciously kept secret. This needs to be opened up to all scientists. That is my position, not the straw man that you have drawn up. It just takes a few small tweaks in the temperature data and a few bad assumptions in the computer models (such as the grossly overestimated positive feedback mechanisms which multiply the effects of CO2), and the whole theory is hopelessly corrupted in which a bunch of outlandish predictions are made in an attempt to influence the politics.

What evidence do you offer to support your opinion?

It is not an opinion, it is fact. CRU has already admitted this data was destroyed decades ago due to limited storage capability available in the 1980's (one of many lame excuses). So nobody could have possibly seen this data and let alone reviewed it because it hasn't existed for nearly 30 years and no one has even raised a brow. CRU has stonewalled freedom of information requests for over a decade from skeptics and non-skeptics alike, and just now the truth is coming out and only because of leaked files. The idea that this data has been thoroughly reviewed is a sham.As far as the other parts, that opinion is from Richard Lindzen one of the leading experts on atmospheric science from MIT. He has been published hundreds of times in numerous scientific journals. Here is one of his latest articles from the WSJ.

How come you only have respect for "experts" when they're supporting your position?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Seems to me there is an important question here and that it would be prudent to have inquiry into the phenomenon. While responsible scientific inquiry is being made, removed from the political process, it seems to me there are prudent low cost measures that can be taken to extend the window for that inquiry. These steps, or many of them, would be prudent wholly independent of the question since being environmental stewards should be among our concerns regardless of the present issue.

 

[Statorama]

How come you only have respect for "experts" when they're supporting your position?

Maybe the "experts" he references haven't fudged the data to reach their conclusions.

 

[RCon]

Seems to me there is an important question here and that it would be prudent to have inquiry into the phenomenon. While responsible scientific inquiry is being made, removed from the political process, it seems to me there are prudent low cost measures that can be taken to extend the window for that inquiry. These steps, or many of them, would be prudent wholly independent of the question since being environmental stewards should be among our concerns regardless of the present issue.

None of those steps will score political points for either side. Therefore, they are non-starters.

 

[Bonzai]

Seems to me there is an important question here and that it would be prudent to have inquiry into the phenomenon. While responsible scientific inquiry is being made, removed from the political process, it seems to me there are prudent low cost measures that can be taken to extend the window for that inquiry. These steps, or many of them, would be prudent wholly independent of the question since being environmental stewards should be among our concerns regardless of the present issue.

None of those steps will score political points for either side. Therefore, they are non-starters.

We're all very impressed with how you have risen above the fray here. Very diplomatic.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Seems to me there is an important question here and that it would be prudent to have inquiry into the phenomenon. While responsible scientific inquiry is being made, removed from the political process, it seems to me there are prudent low cost measures that can be taken to extend the window for that inquiry. These steps, or many of them, would be prudent wholly independent of the question since being environmental stewards should be among our concerns regardless of the present issue.

None of those steps will score political points for either side. Therefore, they are non-starters.

We're all very impressed with how you have risen above the fray here. Very diplomatic.

You'd prefer yet more partisan sniping? Actually given your post this is a rethorical question. Carry on.

 

[Bonzai]

Seems to me there is an important question here and that it would be prudent to have inquiry into the phenomenon. While responsible scientific inquiry is being made, removed from the political process, it seems to me there are prudent low cost measures that can be taken to extend the window for that inquiry. These steps, or many of them, would be prudent wholly independent of the question since being environmental stewards should be among our concerns regardless of the present issue.

None of those steps will score political points for either side. Therefore, they are non-starters.

We're all very impressed with how you have risen above the fray here. Very diplomatic.

You'd prefer yet more partisan sniping? Actually given your post this is a rethorical question. Carry on.

We're getting to the bottom of things in here. Serious business.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Seems to me there is an important question here and that it would be prudent to have inquiry into the phenomenon. While responsible scientific inquiry is being made, removed from the political process, it seems to me there are prudent low cost measures that can be taken to extend the window for that inquiry. These steps, or many of them, would be prudent wholly independent of the question since being environmental stewards should be among our concerns regardless of the present issue.

None of those steps will score political points for either side. Therefore, they are non-starters.

We're all very impressed with how you have risen above the fray here. Very diplomatic.

You'd prefer yet more partisan sniping? Actually given your post this is a rethorical question. Carry on.

We're getting to the bottom of things in here. Serious business.

Then this is definately not my cup of tea. When resolution is achieved will it be posted in a separate pinned thread so that folks like me can be updated and informed?