For the dinky toy driver and his mates
Roger Dewhurst
Will Spencer
> http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Well you have at least 62 megs of Emails PDF's and code, and you haven't
found any fraud or deception yet.
What's keeping you Boy? Get back to work, misquoting and misrepresenting
what was said.
-ws
Roger Dewhurst
Glue some feathers on your bum and you would pass as an ostrich with its
head in the sand.
R
george
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:09:19 +1300, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>
> >>http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
> Glue some feathers on your bum and you would pass as an ostrich with its
> head in the sand.
>
That document really puts a lot of pieces together that didn't appear
to be pieces.
It's really going to take the warmers a long time to get their
reputations back
Roger Dewhurst
Exactly. The writer clearly thinks that some might face prison
sentences. I think that is stretching it a bit, for the UK anyway.
In some quarters they will never get their reputations back. Then we
have Pachauri with no particular qualifications for the job of running
the IPCC and now exposed for making money out of carbon rorts.
R
John Cawston
> http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
He looks like a conspiracy chaser.
He thinks President Johnson faked the moon landing, the US Govt
faked the film on the Kennedy assassination and Senator Paul
Wellstone's death was engineered by the Republicans.
His commentary on the Climategate emails looks reasonably
accurate but overblown.
JC
george
> Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
> He looks like a conspiracy chaser.
Every so often the ?skills? picked up as a conspiracy theorist get a
good airing when there IS a conspiracy...
> He thinks President Johnson faked the moon landing, the US Govt
> faked the film on the Kennedy assassination and Senator Paul
> Wellstone's death was engineered by the Republicans.
>
> His commentary on the Climategate emails looks reasonably
> accurate but overblown.
>
I like the way that he's put it together. Email and reply with a
comment where needed.
More scientific than those who made themselves targets.
Roger Dewhurst
I did wonder about some of his interests. However he does seem to have
the right background and experience to analyse the Zapruder film. I
only read part of the Zapruder article and did not read the other two.
However he is going through the Climategate emails very thoroughly.
These say enough, surely?
July 3, 2002: email 1057941657
The Director of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, investigated the
complaints about the editorial and refereeing process, and wrote:
Dear colleagues, In my [20 June 2003] email to you I stated, among
other things, that I would ask C[limate] R[esearch] editor Chris de
Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers' evaluations for the
[two] Soon et al. papers. I have received and studied the material
requested. Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each
m[anu]s[cript]) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful
evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and
requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their
manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and
correct job as editor.
Mike Mann:
It seems to me that this 'Kinne' character's words are disingenuous,
and probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear
we have to go above him. I think that the community should, as Mike H
has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its
involvement with this journal at all levels�reviewing, editing, and
submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute.
Tom Wigley writes:
I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However,
what would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively
tell people to avoid the journal?
Ben Santer writes:
Based on Kinne's editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened
editorial decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and
I will eventually publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper.
We'll publish this rebuttal in [the Journal of Geophysical Research]�
not in Climate Research.
thingy
> http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
and what does it prove? that the Internet is full of nut jobs...and
this is one of them.
Real newspapers, with real journalists who have investigated this find
nothing...
regards
Thing
thingy
You are the one being hoodwinked by the laissez faire loons..
regards
Thing
thingy
Like not even 2 seconds....
regards
Thing
colp
> On Dec 27, 3:09 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
>
> and what does it prove?
The people at the center of the AGW community actively sought to
suppress and discredit sources of evidence which tended to falsify
AGW.
> that the Internet is full of nut jobs...and
> this is one of them.
Blind faith in the integrity of scientists and politicians is a form
of irrationality isn't inconsistent with being a nut job.
>
> Real newspapers, with real journalists who have investigated this find
> nothing...
Real journalists like Seth Borenstein?
“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics
and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that
the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive
review by The Associated Press.” - Seth Borenstein
Starding a statement with a lie is a good indication of corruption -
the emails were copied and made public, not stolen.
"Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation
as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-
the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support
his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate." - Tacoma
News Tribune
Roger Dewhurst
> On Dec 28, 8:54 am, thingy <news2.th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 3:09 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
>> and what does it prove?
>
> The people at the center of the AGW community actively sought to
> suppress and discredit sources of evidence which tended to falsify
> AGW.
>
These people call it a community! Others might call it a clique.
Whatever it is it is not the right starting point for good science.
R
thingy
Half full glass v half empty glass.....I look at it this way, the
deniers have had emails stretching back a decade for 2 months.....the
have found nothing of consequence in that time of that
time....effectively they have proved, generally the integrity of the
CRU.
Watergate was a break in by Nixon looking for something to pin on the
democrats....instead it blew up on Nixon and cost him the
Presendency...."Deniergate" is more likely to do the deniers damage
than the AGWers....all they have so far is a criminal act and nothing
to show for it.
Indeed it would be a reasonable call to ask the Marshall Institute etc
to allow the AGWers access to their email systems...I dont need to
wonder who would lose that one...
regards
thingy
> On Dec 28, 8:54 am, thingy <news2.th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 3:09 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
>
> > and what does it prove?
>
> The people at the center of the AGW community actively sought to
> suppress and discredit sources of evidence which tended to falsify
> AGW.
>
> > that the Internet is full of nut jobs...and
> > this is one of them.
>
> Blind faith in the integrity of scientists and politicians is a form
> of irrationality isn't inconsistent with being a nut job.
>
>
>
> > Real newspapers, with real journalists who have investigated this find
> > nothing...
>
> Real journalists like Seth Borenstein?
Not especially.
>
> “E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics
> and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that
> the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive
> review by The Associated Press.” - Seth Borenstein
AP, so a real news site as opposed to lunatic fringe.
> Starding a statement with a lie is a good indication of corruption -
> the emails were copied and made public, not stolen.
Stolen as in criminal offence...they were copied illegally and made
public illegally....hence the police are investigating.
> "Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation
> as a runaway alarmist.
In your opinion it seems....
> Even global warming enthusiasts and the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-
> the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support
> his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate." - Tacoma
> News Tribune
How about a link to the IPCCs statement regarding SB?
or even the TNT that isnt a comment/blog?
ie I found this,
"Now consider what other members of the media write about him. From
the Tacoma News-Tribune
Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as
a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-
the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support
his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.
When other reporters can see the bias, AP, you have a problem."
however,
"The writer, Mike Gregg, isn’t listed on the paper’s staff, the Tacoma
News Tribune. And the URL indicates it’s in the letters section of the
opinion page."
regards
Thing
Max Burke
ROTFLOL
IOW 'real' newspapers and 'real' journalists that bolster your POV...
You know the 'real' newspapers and 'real' journalists that say they wont
report on anything contrary to the belief that AGW/Climate change is
solely caused by the human species because it's 'settled science.' and
there can be no argument against that belief.
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Rich...@hotmail.com
<mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote:
>On 28/12/2009 8:54 a.m., thingy wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 3:09 pm, Roger Dewhurst<dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>> http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
>
>> and what does it prove? that the Internet is full of nut jobs...and
>> this is one of them.
>
>> Real newspapers, with real journalists who have investigated this find
>> nothing...
>
>ROTFLOL
>
>IOW 'real' newspapers and 'real' journalists that bolster your POV...
>
>You know the 'real' newspapers and 'real' journalists that say they wont
>report on anything contrary to the belief that AGW/Climate change is
>solely caused by the human species because it's 'settled science.' and
>there can be no argument against that belief.
Do you have a reference for journalists saying that, Max?
Matty F
> On Dec 27, 3:34 pm, Will Spencer <w...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:09:19 +1300, Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> > >http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
>
> > Well you have at least 62 megs of Emails PDF's and code, and you haven't
> > found any fraud or deception yet.
>
> > What's keeping you Boy? Get back to work, misquoting and misrepresenting
> > what was said.
>
> > -ws
>
> Half full glass v half empty glass.....I look at it this way, the
> deniers have had emails stretching back a decade for 2 months.....the
> have found nothing of consequence in that time of that
> time....effectively they have proved, generally the integrity of the
> CRU.
Nothing of consequence? Clearly you didn't read the site.
Here it is again. Don't come back until you read it all:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Gary Funkhouser:
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. […] I don’t think it’d be productive to try and
juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they
just are what they are […] I think I’ll have to look for an option
where I can let this little story go as it is.
Geoff Jenkins:
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with [the] early release of information […] “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature[,] etc[,] etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
Joe Alcamo:
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it
a week before them so that they and other N[on-]G[overnmental] O
[rganization]s can further spread the word about the Statement. On the
other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement in the same
week, but on a diffe[r]ent day. The media might enjoy hearing the
message from two very different directions.
Tom Wigley:
Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the [Meteorological
Office] Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you
realize. […] The Hadley people have clearly screwed things up, but
their “errors” don’t really matter given all of the uncertainties. I
didn’t mention this because I thought that opening up that can of
worms would confuse people even more.
[…]
The climate model output is also uncertain.
Ed Cook asks Keith Briffa:
Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature
response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn't
apply a bodge here)
Keith Briffa:
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards
‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the
[temperature] proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so
simple. We don’t have a lot of [temperature] proxies that come right
up to [today] and those that do (at least a significant number of tree
proxies) [have] some unexpected changes in response that do not match
the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored
in the chapter.
...
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years
ago.
Giorgi Filippo:
I myself think that material for a document as important as the
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s] T[hird] A[ssessment] R
[eport] cannot be drawn from last-minute barely quality[-]checked and
un-peer[-]reviewed material (people have barely looked at the M[ax] P
[lanck] I[nstitute] run that was completed last [F]riday!).
Mann:
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering
Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we
should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to
no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable
colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…
colp
> On Dec 28, 9:29 am, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 8:54 am, thingy <news2.th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 3:09 pm, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
>
> > > and what does it prove?
>
> > The people at the center of the AGW community actively sought to
> > suppress and discredit sources of evidence which tended to falsify
> > AGW.
>
> > > that the Internet is full of nut jobs...and
> > > this is one of them.
>
> > Blind faith in the integrity of scientists and politicians is a form
> > of irrationality isn't inconsistent with being a nut job.
>
> > > Real newspapers, with real journalists who have investigated this find
> > > nothing...
>
> > Real journalists like Seth Borenstein?
>
> Not especially.
Then who?
>
>
>
> > “E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics
> > and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that
> > the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive
> > review by The Associated Press.” - Seth Borenstein
>
> AP, so a real news site as opposed to lunatic fringe.
You think that opinion from the Tacoma News Tribune is lunatic fringe?
>
> > Starding a statement with a lie is a good indication of corruption -
> > the emails were copied and made public, not stolen.
>
> Stolen as in criminal offence...
Copying data isn't a _criminal_ offence, regardless of copyright
issues.
> they were copied illegally and made
> public illegally....
Proof please.
> hence the police are investigating.
>
> > "Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation
> > as a runaway alarmist.
>
> In your opinion it seems....
And that of Tacoma News Tribune. I've added some quotes to show that
their piece isn't far off the mark.
>
> > Even global warming enthusiasts and the
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-
> > the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support
> > his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate." - Tacoma
> > News Tribune
>
> How about a link to the IPCCs statement regarding SB?
>
> or even the TNT that isnt a comment/blog?
>
> ie I found this,
>
> "Now consider what other members of the media write about him. From
> the Tacoma News-Tribune
> Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as
> a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-
> the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support
> his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.
> When other reporters can see the bias, AP, you have a problem."
>
> however,
>
> "The writer, Mike Gregg, isn’t listed on the paper’s staff, the Tacoma
> News Tribune. And the URL indicates it’s in the letters section of the
> opinion page."
OK, here are some quotes from more credentialed sources regarding
Borenstein:
How can anyone so ignorant be a reporter for AP? Seriously? -- David
Deming, University of Oklahoma
But it is certain that anybody who proclaims that “Global warming is
accelerating” is a liar, a fool, or both. -- Richard S. Courtney, a UN
IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science
consultant.
Science Illiterates like Borenstein are the Chicken Littles of the
21st Century
James A. Peden, atmospheric physicist formerly of the Space Research
and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.