Re: If AGW is real, why would the main players delete data?
Chris L Peterson
>If anyone has taken the time to read the e-mail and other documents
>that were hacked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, they will have
>seen documents from prominent scientists asking others to erase
>certain findings. Not ALL findings, just CERTAIN findings...
>(Note that these documents have been authenticated).
>
>The link below shows ONE of these e-mails
>
>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
There's nothing there that looks like a suggestion to delete any data.
In fact, I've seen very little in any of the released emails to suggest
any sort of hiding of data or scientifically suspect actions. There's
nothing there but political ammo; it doesn't change the overall quality
of climate research, nor the obvious conclusion that AGW is a real
phenomenon.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
David Staup
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:sgs5h5tcu169lcf2u...@4ax.com...
Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire
as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL
correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another,
quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time
scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the
120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer
time scales!"
not scientifically suspect??? maybe not by your standards...chuckle
lies, damn lies, and statistics.... massage anyone
Sam Wormley
Take a look at what's happening around the world.
I've provided you with links to some good graphic
of data form many independent sources.
CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.
The global data CLEARLY shows:
Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
And accompanying Sea Level Rise
http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
There are many sources of good data
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
More from University of Iowa
http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/faculty-staff/profile-directory/cee/schnoor_j.php
Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
http://hfranzen.org/
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Sam Wormley
>
> Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire
> as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL
> correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another,
> quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time
> scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the
> 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer
> time scales!"
>
Here is access to raw data, processed data and program code:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Sam Wormley
>
> You haven't read all the e-mails and documents. There are more that point
> to cherry picking, massaging data to fit, choosing peer review panels
> that were sure to concur with their outcomes and refusing to cooperate
> with anyone who disagreed with their findings.
Have you read all the e-mails and documents. You smell like a cherry
(a rotten cherry) picker to me.
BradGuth
> S. Caro wrote:
>
> > You haven't read all the e-mails and documents. There are more that point
> > to cherry picking, massaging data to fit, choosing peer review panels
> > that were sure to concur with their outcomes and refusing to cooperate
> > with anyone who disagreed with their findings.
>
> Have you read all the e-mails and documents. You smell like a cherry
> (a rotten cherry) picker to me.
>
> Take a look at what's happening around the world.
> I've provided you with links to some good graphic
> of data form many independent sources.
>
> CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
> increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
> impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
> patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.
>
> The global data CLEARLY shows:
>
> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
>
> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>
> And accompanying Sea Level Risehttp://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0...
>
> There are many sources of good data
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
>
> Here's some data from Iowa State University
> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
>
> More from University of Iowa
>
> Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
> http://hfranzen.org/
> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Apparently objective accountability doesn't qualify as evidence, that
is unless it favors the opposite of AGW.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Guth--What data did I present to you that favors the "opposite of AGW"?
yourmommycalled
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:sgs5h5tcu169lcf2u...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:53:32 -0600, "S. Caro" <sc...@muxnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>If anyone has taken the time to read the e-mail and other documents
> >>that were hacked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, they will have
> >>seen documents from prominent scientists asking others to erase
> >>certain findings. Not ALL findings, just CERTAIN findings...
> >>(Note that these documents have been authenticated).
>
> >>The link below shows ONE of these e-mails
>
>
> > There's nothing there that looks like a suggestion to delete any data.
> > In fact, I've seen very little in any of the released emails to suggest
> > any sort of hiding of data or scientifically suspect actions. There's
> > nothing there but political ammo; it doesn't change the overall quality
> > of climate research, nor the obvious conclusion that AGW is a real
> > phenomenon.
> > _________________________________________________
>
> > Chris L Peterson
> > Cloudbait Observatory
> >http://www.cloudbait.com
>
> Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire
> as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL
> correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another,
> quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time
> scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the
> 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer
> time scales!"
>
> not scientifically suspect??? maybe not by your standards...chuckle
>
> lies, damn lies, and statistics.... massage anyone
Since you claim to be able to read the source. Did you notice that the
whole section is commented out. Did you see that the whole collection
isn't being used as part of the analysis programs Nah that would make
you look stupid Chuckle pretty stupid on your part
yourmommycalled
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:53:32 -0600, "S. Caro" <sc...@muxnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>If anyone has taken the time to read the e-mail and other documents
> >>that were hacked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, they will have
> >>seen documents from prominent scientists asking others to erase
> >>certain findings. Not ALL findings, just CERTAIN findings...
> >>(Note that these documents have been authenticated).
>
> >>The link below shows ONE of these e-mails
>
>
> > There's nothing there that looks like a suggestion to delete any data.
> > In fact, I've seen very little in any of the released emails to suggest
> > any sort of hiding of data or scientifically suspect actions. There's
> > nothing there but political ammo; it doesn't change the overall quality
> > of climate research, nor the obvious conclusion that AGW is a real
> > phenomenon.
>
> to cherry picking, massaging data to fit, choosing peer review panels
> that were sure to concur with their outcomes and refusing to cooperate
> with anyone who disagreed with their findings.
>
> won't go back and dig up links to post links. (But I'm sure others will do
> this anyway).
>
> Here's a task. Explain how people of less faith can be ABSOLUTELY certain that
> the uncovered conversations are meaningless and that the Hadley crew has done
> nothing underhanded when it comes to their climate research.
>
> Prove it unequivocally.
First prove that the emails contain anything more than a bunch of
emails between scientists who are sick and tired being libeled and
slandered by industry paid shills and clueless morons like you. Then
explain to me why you are willing to ignore Pat Michaels lying under
oath before Congress about global warming, why you are willing to
allow Steve McIntyre lie about the availability of raw tree ring data,
why you are willing to allow the Heartland Institute offer a $10,00
reward for anyone to lie about global warming.
yourmommycalled
> S. Caro -- What makes you thing data was deleted?
>
> Take a look at what's happening around the world.
> I've provided you with links to some good graphic
> of data form many independent sources.
>
> CO2 increase, Global Temperature increase, Sea Level
> increase, are all consistent with each other. Real
> impact is showing up in agriculture, ecosystems, weather
> patterns, shifting seasons and ice melting.
>
> The global data CLEARLY shows:
>
> Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
>
> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>
> And accompanying Sea Level Risehttp://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0...
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
> http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php
>
> Here's some data from Iowa State University
> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/faculty/takle/presentations.html
>
> More from University of Iowa
>
> Franzen - The Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change
> http://hfranzen.org/
> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Sam although I agree there is need to oppose the libel and slander,
Staup freely admits that he has lost cognative ability and memory and
Caro never had any.
Bruce
news:QDFQm.155670$la3.119751@attbi_s22:
I doubt it is accurate, this site is run by Mann.
David Staup
"yourmommycalled" <mommy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:76440539-758e-4d5f...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
I suspect this situation will percipatate a close look by all at the data,
collection methods, and conclusions...why would anyone oppose that?
I never did like fudge. cap and trade is dead for the time being and
rightly so....in the mean time I like it warmer and wetter so I opt for
plastic bags at the grocery...and then burn them....chuckle
yourmommycalled
> Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote innews:QDFQm.155670$la3.119751@attbi_s22:
Exactly what makes you think that Mann is dishonest? Everything he has
done has been and is now freely available for download. All the raw
data, analysis software and results have been freely available for
download via ftp for years. Maybe you mean Pat Michaels, who got
caught lie under oath before Congress
yourmommycalled
>
> >>If anyone has taken the time to read the e-mail and other documents
> >>that were hacked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, they will have
> >>seen documents from prominent scientists asking others to erase
> >>certain findings. Not ALL findings, just CERTAIN findings...
> >>(Note that these documents have been authenticated).
>
> >>The link below shows ONE of these e-mails
>
>
> > There's nothing there that looks like a suggestion to delete any data.
> > In fact, I've seen very little in any of the released emails to suggest
> > any sort of hiding of data or scientifically suspect actions. There's
> > nothing there but political ammo; it doesn't change the overall quality
> > of climate research, nor the obvious conclusion that AGW is a real
> > phenomenon.
>
> to cherry picking, massaging data to fit, choosing peer review panels
> that were sure to concur with their outcomes and refusing to cooperate
> with anyone who disagreed with their findings.
>
> Since you are a person of great faith, I doubt they would sway you so I
> won't go back and dig up links to post links. (But I'm sure others will do
> this anyway).
>
> Here's a task. Explain how people of less faith can be ABSOLUTELY certain that
> the uncovered conversations are meaningless and that the Hadley crew has done
> nothing underhanded when it comes to their climate research.
>
> Prove it unequivocally.
Indeed I have read the emails, a long time before you have, I've
looked at the source code a long time ago. All you can do is post
links from people like Watts, Spencer, Miloy, Soon, Baliunas,
McIntyre, McKitrick, de Freitas All of whom have been shown to be
unable to do simple arithmetic or who have freely admitted that they
sold their integrity for a few dollars.
yourmommycalled
> "yourmommycalled" <mommycal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
What makes you think that every scientist in the world isn't trying to
find something wrong with the observed data and modeling results and
haven't taken a close look at the date, collection methods, analysis
methods and source code, and conclusions. You claim to have read the
emails, but it is clear you haven't since you would have seen how much
effort goes into making sure morons like you don't have a leg to
stand on. Think how often liars like Watts, Michaels, Miloy, McIntyre
and McKitrick have tried to shoot down Hansen's results and methods.
Guess what Watts, Michaels, Miloy, McIntyre and McKitrick and host of
others are so incompetent that they get laughed at every time they
open their mouth.Think McIntyre and McKitrick who got shot down by
group of statistician (McIntrye's supposed field of competence) who
said in a National Academy of Science report the McIntyre is
incompetent. Kinda like McIntyre claiming Briffa wouldn't give him
tree ring data and that McIntyre could not verify Briffa's results so
therefore Briffa's hiding something.Guess what? McIntryre had the tree
ring data for longer than Briffa. If you are so concerned with fraud
why aren't screaming about McIntyre's fraud? Why aren't you screaming
fraud when the oil/gas industry lobbying group (the lobbying groups
name is the Heartland Institute) offers a $10,000 reward to anyone
who will publish an anti-global warming paper whether it is factual or
not? Why aren't you screaming fraud when Christy publishes papers in
the scientific journals that Hansen's projections are correct,
testifies under oath in court that Hansen's projections and
conclusions are correct, yet goes on Heartland Institute sponsored
speaking tours claiming Hansen is wrong
Come on David answer the questions, so far all you have done is wave
your hand at some dastardly dealing, but you have yet to do anything
but repeat the words of other known liars
David Staup
first this:
you said "You claim to have read the emails"
you sir are the liar....show me where I claimed that
second your name calling and claims of fraud and lying by the opposing view
are not questions nor arguments they are misdirection. I do not accept the
premise of your unfounded claims and see no need to address any of your
drivel or is it dribble I guess I could ask yo momma
I will accept the results of the honest debate that will come as a result of
the uproar caused by the now exposed fraud... both sides will be heard and
true science will prevail...except for the fact that you and your ilk will
certainly not be convinced.
I can't wait all the crying and gnashing of teeth will be quite a
show...almost as good as when G. Bush stold the election...chuckle
by the way hurricane season is over LOL
BradGuth
I'm on your side. It was meant as a pun, whereas the anti-AGW clowns
and their Big Energy puppet masters are the ones being very data
selective and otherwise obfuscating hardest upon whatever doesn't help
their argument.
Objective accounting of those remaining volumes of 'slow ice' is all
that matters. We're headed towards losing a km3/day, and that's not
exactly a good sign.
With 30e6 km3 and the average daily loss of 1 km3 = 30e6 days, or only
82,192 years and those oceans full of expanding dead zones will no
longer rise, other than for thermal expansion (<1% of 15e9 km3 = 15e6
km3) as our environment really gets hot and humid. Actually, there
should be a progressive acceleration of melt, so perhaps within 8,000
years we’re ice free and oceans high, with Antarctica summers running
well above freezing (lots of fall, winter, spring season snow as fast
ice, but that’s about it).
~ BG