Was the CRU data really lost?
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
James
--
James Hammerton,
http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/
abelard
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>See:
>
>http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>
>It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
let alone deleted...
what i do see is so much noise....so little content...
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hammerton
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:09:03 +0000, James Hammerton
> <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> See:
>>
>> http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>>
>> It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>> that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>>from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>
> i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
> let alone deleted...
The CRU themselves say they deleted some data, but maybe you don't
regard them as reliable on this point?
abelard
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:09:03 +0000, James Hammerton
>> <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>>>
>>> It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>>> that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>>>from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>>
>> i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
>> let alone deleted...
>
>The CRU themselves say they deleted some data, but maybe you don't
>regard them as reliable on this point?
i can well believe some derivative data has be deleted...
probably once a week...
perhaps i should have been more clear...i meant collected data...
original data...
James Hammerton
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:17 +0000, James Hammerton
> <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:09:03 +0000, James Hammerton
>>> <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> See:
>>>>
>>>> http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>>>>
>>>> It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>>>> that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>>> >from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>>>
>>> i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
>>> let alone deleted...
>> The CRU themselves say they deleted some data, but maybe you don't
>> regard them as reliable on this point?
>
> i can well believe some derivative data has be deleted...
> probably once a week...
>
> perhaps i should have been more clear...i meant collected data...
> original data...
But CRU said they do not hold the raw data, i.e. it is the "quality
controlled and homogenized" data they retained. However, the press
release that said this is no longer available but I found this in
Google's cache (I had trouble accessing the actual page):
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:mcd09WUmm08J:https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
Note that it says:
"Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to
keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
homogenized) data. "
abelard
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:17 +0000, James Hammerton
>> <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:09:03 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>> <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> See:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>>>>> that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>>>> >from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>>>>
>>>> i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
>>>> let alone deleted...
>>> The CRU themselves say they deleted some data, but maybe you don't
>>> regard them as reliable on this point?
>>
>> i can well believe some derivative data has be deleted...
>> probably once a week...
>>
>> perhaps i should have been more clear...i meant collected data...
>> original data...
>
>But CRU said they do not hold the raw data, i.e. it is the "quality
>controlled and homogenized" data they retained. However, the press
>release that said this is no longer available but I found this in
>Google's cache (I had trouble accessing the actual page):
so they don't hold originated data...
>http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:mcd09WUmm08J:https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
>
>Note that it says:
>
>"Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to
>keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
>adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
>original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
>homogenized) data. "
so, it's derivative data...so who cares?
or am i missing something?
James Hammerton
You do remember writing "i can well believe some derivative data has be
deleted...", and "perhaps i should have been more clear...i meant
collected data... original data..."? It's the derivative data being
retained whilst original data was deleted (or rather CRU's copy of it was).
abelard
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
ok so far...but the original data is sourced elsewhere is it not...
and therefore the cru have only dumped copies...
again...or am i missing something?
James Hammerton
Indeed, that was the point of my original post!
> and therefore the cru have only dumped copies...
Exactly.
> again...or am i missing something?
Only that your responses to me seemed to be overlooking the fact that
(a) data was deleted and (b) the data being deleted was not the
derivative data you said you could well believe deleted.
abelard
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
ah...
i'm not sure that i had so great a grasp on the situation as yourself.
it rather went on the back burner for me as i got the impression
they had destroyed nothing of moment...
that does indeed seem to be confirmed by your comments...
in view of the situation as you are instructing me...
i did think some may derivative stuff may not be preserved...
.i would be concerned at that *if* it is derived data used in
'items' published purporting to be useful research...
i don't like research papers where i cannot trace back the process
such that the claims cannot be reproduced and checked for
sanity....i tend not to trust such articles one jot...
i can well see interested parties getting mightily pissed if such
trails of evidence are mishandled or lost....
i've been pretty well satisfied thus far, that no serious primary
data has been lost/dumped....
but i'm *not* yet satisfied the research trails have been properly
handled...
any further comments you have would be helpful and welcome
thanx for you ongoing efforts...as ever
James Hammerton
At this point I don't think there's much to add on the data front. As
for the research trails, I'd need to do a lot more work to verify one
way or the other.
I'm finding on reading the emails that what appears damning at first
sight is tending not to be so damning once you read carefully and try to
verify things.
E.g. one of the emails has Jones saying he'll try to keep two papers out
of the IPCC AR 4 report. Now, he suggests this because in his view the
work reported is very poor (which would be a good reason for not
including it) so it might be entirely legitimate to have left the papers
out. However, clearly any attempts he made to do so were unsuccessful
since both papers were cited and discussed in the 3rd chapter of the
report! And this email (which was open to interpretation in the first
place) is cited by some as evidence of corruption of the peer review
process...
Blue
broadssailor
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:09:03 +0000, James Hammerton
>
> >See:
>
> >http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>
> >It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
> >that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
> >from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>
> i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
> let alone deleted...
> what i do see is so much noise....so little content...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
"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. ....."
Now what's a more reliable source than the unit itself ? Keep up or
shut up! We are wise enough to see through any crude attempts a
'Joseph Goebbels'!
broadssailor
> abelard wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:39:17 +0000, James Hammerton
> > <jah.use...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> abelard wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:09:03 +0000, James Hammerton
> >>> <jah.use...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>> See:
>
> >>>>http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>
> >>>> It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
> >>>> that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
> >>> >from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>
> >>> i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
> >>> let alone deleted...
> >> The CRU themselves say they deleted some data, but maybe you don't
> >> regard them as reliable on this point?
>
> > i can well believe some derivative data has be deleted...
> > probably once a week...
>
> > perhaps i should have been more clear...i meant collected data...
> > original data...
>
> But CRU said they do not hold the raw data, i.e. it is the "quality
> controlled and homogenized" data they retained. However, the press
> release that said this is no longer available but I found this in
> Google's cache (I had trouble accessing the actual page):
>
>
> Note that it says:
>
> "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to
> keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after
> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the
> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and
> homogenized) data. "
>
> James
>
> --
> James Hammerton,http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/
That excuse is unbelievable. The UEA has Microfiche, it had Microfiche
(or a similar format) in the 80s, the data could have been stored in
that way! Microfiche, and its close cousin microfilm, have been
around for years.
They are valuable research and archive sources in libraries around the
world.
Another feature is that once microfiche has been imprinted, it is
unalterable. Perhaps that's why they chose not to use it.......
Kim Bolton
James Hammerton wrote:
>See:
>
>http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>
>It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>
>James
Have you read this:
It appears to be a comprehensive 43-page review of the way the CRU and
others worked, and some of the counter-evidence that shows the globe
has been cooling for ~15 years.
For example, one set of raw data was manipulated through five
processes before emerging as 'data'. When the CRU say they'll release
the data, it begs the question of which data they refer to.
Another example is the article about the tree-ring data, that caused
the CRU such a problem as it did not fit the temperature data.
The article says that tree-ring density can be increased due to wet
weather, and also through increased CO2 levels. But it is clear that
tree-ring data didn't fit with the modelled increase in temperature.
So what did the CRU do? Manipulate the tree-ring data to fit with the
temperatures.
What they should have done - and doubtless someone will do - is
use temperatures, rainfall, and CO2 data (all of which are known) to
model tree-ring growth and use that analysis to remove the latter two
effects, leaving only temperature-related density effects. This is a
rigorous procedure giving reliable and supported data.
One wonders why this simple procedure wasn't done, or if it was done,
why it never saw the light of day. Instead we have a fudge of
seemingly-arbitrary numbers, as detailed in the reference.
--
from
Kim Bolton
James Hammerton
> 'James Hammerton' wrote thus:
>> abelard wrote:
>>> any further comments you have would be helpful and welcome
>
>
>> At this point I don't think there's much to add on the data front. As
>> for the research trails, I'd need to do a lot more work to verify one
>> way or the other.
>>
>> I'm finding on reading the emails that what appears damning at first
>> sight is tending not to be so damning once you read carefully and try to
>> verify things.
>>
>> E.g. one of the emails has Jones saying he'll try to keep two papers out
>> of the IPCC AR 4 report. Now, he suggests this because in his view the
>> work reported is very poor (which would be a good reason for not
>> including it) so it might be entirely legitimate to have left the papers
>> out. However, clearly any attempts he made to do so were unsuccessful
>> since both papers were cited and discussed in the 3rd chapter of the
>> report! And this email (which was open to interpretation in the first
>> place) is cited by some as evidence of corruption of the peer review
>> process...
>
> contain comments that might be expected in any operation,
> others are far stronger evidence of a deliberate intention to
> hide information, make it unavailable to people thru (eg) FoI
> and therefore to create a pre-determined set of results,
> probably dictated by the likes of Brown via the IPCC.
The evidence of resistance to releasing data is pretty convincing, I
grant. I've already covered that issue in an earlier thread and blog
article.
James Hammerton
> On 5 Dec, 19:22, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:09:03 +0000, James Hammerton
>>
>> <jah.use...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> See:
>>> http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>>> It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>>> that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>> >from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>>
>> i've seen no *reliable* source claiming data was lost,
>> let alone deleted...
>> what i do see is so much noise....so little content...
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>
> "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.
>
> following requests for the data under Freedom of Information
> legislation. ....."
>
> Now what's a more reliable source than the unit itself ? Keep up or
> shut up! We are wise enough to see through any crude attempts a
> 'Joseph Goebbels'!
>
reliability of the Times' article...
abelard
abelard
wrote:
>
>James Hammerton wrote:
>
>>See:
>>
>>http://jhammerton.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/did-the-cru-destroy-data/
>>
>>It appears the earlier reports left out crucial details, e.g. the data
>>that was deleted at CRU was poor quality data which is still available
>>from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center...
>>
>>James
>
>Have you read this:
>
>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
>
>It appears to be a comprehensive 43-page review of the way the CRU and
>others worked, and some of the counter-evidence that shows the globe
>has been cooling for ~15 years.
>
>For example, one set of raw data was manipulated through five
>processes before emerging as 'data'. When the CRU say they'll release
>the data, it begs the question of which data they refer to.
>
>Another example is the article about the tree-ring data, that caused
>the CRU such a problem as it did not fit the temperature data.
>
>The article says that tree-ring density can be increased due to wet
>weather, and also through increased CO2 levels. But it is clear that
>tree-ring data didn't fit with the modelled increase in temperature.
the tree ring data didn't fit with the temperatures measured
by the likes of thermometers...
>So what did the CRU do? Manipulate the tree-ring data to fit with the
>temperatures.
what would you rather...the thermometer temperatures were
adjusted to fit the tree ring data?
in fact, in the main item where you as a representative of the
unwashed complain...the later tree ring data were dropped
as unreliable
>What they should have done - and doubtless someone will do - is
>use temperatures, rainfall, and CO2 data (all of which are known) to
>model tree-ring growth and use that analysis to remove the latter two
>effects, leaving only temperature-related density effects. This is a
>rigorous procedure giving reliable and supported data.
>
>One wonders why this simple procedure wasn't done, or if it was done,
>why it never saw the light of day. Instead we have a fudge of
>seemingly-arbitrary numbers, as detailed in the reference.
are you volunteering to train up and then do core samples
in the rockies and siberia for the next 20 years....
and then learn sufficient maths that you could makes sense
of the data...
i am constantly stunned by the apparent belief exhibited by
uneducated people like yourself....that you're likely to spot
something that thousands of (highly educated) scientists have
missed
your arrogance is homeric
Blue
> i am constantly stunned by the apparent belief exhibited by
> uneducated people like yourself....that you're likely to spot
> something that thousands of (highly educated) scientists have
> missed
> your arrogance is homeric
Mankind cries when you post.
abelard
as they should....
Blue
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:11:04 +0000, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>
>>> i am constantly stunned by the apparent belief exhibited by
>>> uneducated people like yourself....that you're likely to spot
>>> something that thousands of (highly educated) scientists have
>>> missed
>>> your arrogance is homeric
>
>> Mankind cries when you post.
>
> as they should....
>
your name says it all.
In the days of religion you'd be the one slobbering all over the local vicar.
you're an elitist snob and you don't give a fig what they're saying.
abelard
>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:11:04 +0000, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>
>>>> i am constantly stunned by the apparent belief exhibited by
>>>> uneducated people like yourself....that you're likely to spot
>>>> something that thousands of (highly educated) scientists have
>>>> missed
>>>> your arrogance is homeric
>>
>>> Mankind cries when you post.
>>
>> as they should....
>your name says it all.
>
>In the days of religion you'd be the one slobbering all over the local vicar.
i see you know nothing useful about Abelard either
>you're an elitist snob and you don't give a fig what they're saying.
how could you....you've seen right through me....
i am indeed a registered elitist...though not a snob...after
all i respond to the likes of yourgoodself....
and certainly i give not a fig for the ramblings of the ignorant
and uneducated...far better i work to educate you, rather
than take your uninformed and illinformed ravings seriously
'eat shit...50,000,000 flies can't be wrong' is a slogan only
fit for idiots like yourself...
hummingbird
> Thanks, I've been reading bits of your blog :-)
> dunno how you make the time .....
James, do you have Aracari's IP address?
--
"All truth passes through three sieves.
First, it is sieved for ridicule,
second it is sieved for freeware,
and third, it is sieved for self-evidence"
(Arthur Schwarzenegger)
Kim Bolton
abelard wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:56:54 +0000, Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>>It appears to be a comprehensive 43-page review of the way the CRU and
>>others worked, and some of the counter-evidence that shows the globe
>>has been cooling for ~15 years.
>>
>>For example, one set of raw data was manipulated through five
>>processes before emerging as 'data'. When the CRU say they'll release
>>the data, it begs the question of which data they refer to.
>>
>>Another example is the article about the tree-ring data, that caused
>>the CRU such a problem as it did not fit the temperature data.
>>
>>The article says that tree-ring density can be increased due to wet
>>weather, and also through increased CO2 levels. But it is clear that
>>tree-ring data didn't fit with the modelled increase in temperature.
>
>the tree ring data didn't fit with the temperatures measured
>by the likes of thermometers...
>
>>So what did the CRU do? Manipulate the tree-ring data to fit with the
>>temperatures.
>
>what would you rather...the thermometer temperatures were
>adjusted to fit the tree ring data?
What I would rather have done is this rigorous process:
The article says that tree-ring density can be increased due to wet
weather, and also through increased CO2 levels. But it is clear that
tree-ring data didn't fit with the modelled increase in temperature.
So what did the CRU do? Manipulate the tree-ring data to fit with the
temperatures.
What they should have done - and doubtless someone will do - is
use temperatures, rainfall, and CO2 data (all of which are known) to
model tree-ring growth and use that analysis to remove the latter two
effects, leaving only temperature-related density effects. This is a
rigorous procedure giving reliable and supported data.
One wonders why this simple procedure wasn't done, or if it was done,
why it never saw the light of day. Instead we have a fudge of
seemingly-arbitrary numbers, as detailed in the reference.
>in fact, in the main item where you as a representative of the
>unwashed complain...the later tree ring data were dropped as unreliable
As implied above, that was a travesty of process. There was a standard
way of dealing with the data.
>are you volunteering to train up and then do core samples
>in the rockies and siberia for the next 20 years....
>and then learn sufficient maths that you could makes sense
>of the data...
I have given you a rigorous process by which the tree-ring data could
have been used.
You must ask yourself why this work, which could be done in a day, was
never apparently attempted.
>i am constantly stunned by the apparent belief exhibited by
>uneducated people like yourself....that you're likely to spot
>something that thousands of (highly educated) scientists have
>missed
I have been using multi-way ANOVA for forty years. How long have you
been using it?
>your arrogance is homeric
That is because you speak from ignorance.
--
from
Kim Bolton
abelard
wrote:
no, they didn't use them from 1960 or so onward
>What they should have done - and doubtless someone will do - is
>use temperatures, rainfall, and CO2 data (all of which are known) to
>model tree-ring growth and use that analysis to remove the latter two
>effects, leaving only temperature-related density effects. This is a
>rigorous procedure giving reliable and supported data.
oh dear...the tree ring data used by briffa are synthesised
from many sites...
exactly which trees from which sites has been the real problem
at issue....
>One wonders why this simple procedure wasn't done, or if it was done,
>why it never saw the light of day. Instead we have a fudge of
>seemingly-arbitrary numbers, as detailed in the reference.
ask briffa....
>>in fact, in the main item where you as a representative of the
>>unwashed complain...the later tree ring data were dropped as unreliable
>
>As implied above, that was a travesty of process. There was a standard
>way of dealing with the data.
there isn't
meanwhile the problem has been discussed in 'the literature'
tree ring data is as yet far from settled
>>are you volunteering to train up and then do core samples
>>in the rockies and siberia for the next 20 years....
>>and then learn sufficient maths that you could makes sense
>>of the data...
>
>I have given you a rigorous process by which the tree-ring data could
>have been used.
you have given a *theoretical* approach....
it is idiots like yourself that keep on whining(without knowing what
you are on about) the theoretical nature of computer models
>You must ask yourself why this work, which could be done in a day, was
>never apparently attempted.
because it's very costly and time consuming?
because you ain't volunteering?
because the problem is rather more difficult than your
armchair generalship suggests?
>>i am constantly stunned by the apparent belief exhibited by
>>uneducated people like yourself....that you're likely to spot
>>something that thousands of (highly educated) scientists have
>>missed
>
>I have been using multi-way ANOVA for forty years. How long have you
>been using it?
i suggest you get an anorak and go to siberia instead...
you'd be far more useful
you sound like a sociologist...putting numbers into a mincing machine
and cranking the handle is not 'science'...
>>your arrogance is homeric
>
>That is because you speak from ignorance.
not at all....i've met your likes in a thousand university drink-ins
James Hammerton
hummingbird
You might not want Chris's IP address but other people do. Chris
(Aracari) regularly causes mayhem on various other newgroups.
Unsurprisingly he's reluctant to own up to his actions.
He's requested his news server (Giganews) withhold his IP to allow him
to post anonymously. Unfortunately he now posts irresponsibly.
Kim Bolton
abelard wrote:
Exactly. They didn#t use them when there was a mechanism by which they
could.
>>What they should have done - and doubtless someone will do - is
>>use temperatures, rainfall, and CO2 data (all of which are known) to
>>model tree-ring growth and use that analysis to remove the latter two
>>effects, leaving only temperature-related density effects. This is a
>>rigorous procedure giving reliable and supported data.
>
>oh dear...the tree ring data used by briffa are synthesised
>from many sites...
>exactly which trees from which sites has been the real problem
>at issue....
Data is data, you fool. You cannot in science pick and choose what
data to use; you have to deal with the lot.
>>One wonders why this simple procedure wasn't done, or if it was done,
>>why it never saw the light of day. Instead we have a fudge of
>>seemingly-arbitrary numbers, as detailed in the reference.
>
>ask briffa....
Ask Briffa what, exactly?
>>>in fact, in the main item where you as a representative of the
>>>unwashed complain...the later tree ring data were dropped as unreliable
>>
>>As implied above, that was a travesty of process. There was a standard
>>way of dealing with the data.
>
>there isn't
There is, but you seem ignorant of it.
>meanwhile the problem has been discussed in 'the literature'
>tree ring data is as yet far from settled
Quite.
>>>are you volunteering to train up and then do core samples
>>>in the rockies and siberia for the next 20 years....
>>>and then learn sufficient maths that you could makes sense
>>>of the data...
>>
>>I have given you a rigorous process by which the tree-ring data could
>>have been used.
>
>you have given a *theoretical* approach....
It isn't 'theoretical'. What I proposed is a standard method of
dealing with a number of variables.
>it is idiots like yourself that keep on whining(without knowing what
>you are on about) the theoretical nature of computer models
I never mentioned 'computer models'. I mentioned a specific analytical
technique. Are you now shifting your ground away from the
uncomfortable?
>>You must ask yourself why this work, which could be done in a day, was
>>never apparently attempted.
>
>because it's very costly and time consuming?
>because you ain't volunteering?
>because the problem is rather more difficult than your
>armchair generalship suggests?
Ad hominem.
>>>i am constantly stunned by the apparent belief exhibited by
>>>uneducated people like yourself....that you're likely to spot
>>>something that thousands of (highly educated) scientists have
>>>missed
>>
>>I have been using multi-way ANOVA for forty years. How long have you
>>been using it?
>
>i suggest you get an anorak and go to siberia instead...
>you'd be far more useful
It is a powerful tool for sorting out effects and their interactions.
By commenting as you do, you show your ignorance of the subject.
>you sound like a sociologist...putting numbers into a mincing machine
>and cranking the handle is not 'science'...
And what would you know about science?
>>>your arrogance is homeric
>>
>>That is because you speak from ignorance.
>
>not at all....i've met your likes in a thousand university drink-ins
So, you have no response other than ad hominem. Well well.
--
from
Kim Bolton
James Hammerton
Why should I care that they want it?
> Chris
> (Aracari) regularly causes mayhem on various other newgroups.
How do you know it's the same poster?
What do you mean by "mayhem"?
> Unsurprisingly he's reluctant to own up to his actions.
>
> He's requested his news server (Giganews) withhold his IP to allow him
> to post anonymously. Unfortunately he now posts irresponsibly.
What do you mean by "posts irresponsibly"?
hummingbird
Just take a look Chris's antics in alt.comp.freeware. It was all quiet
there until he came back at the beginning of October from vacation in Rio
de Janeiro.
Note that Chris likes to post to uk.politics.misc as "Aracari" but he posts
in alt.comp.freeware using my nym "Hummingbird". So I post as Franklin.
Chris is well known for his attempts in recent years to wreak so much havoc
in a.c.f. that it is almost unusable. You will find his sidekick in
causing this mayhem is currently posting to a.c.f. using the nym "Jeffrey
Blossom".
Here's a link to Google Groups: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ydd853n
--
James Hammerton
I see a lot of argument between hummingbird and franklin with all sorts
of accusations being flung between the two. I can't think of any reason
to get involved myself.
hummingbird
I understand. I guess you need to know the history to see the posts
within a larger perspective.
hummingbird
> "Franklin" from <alt.comp.freeware> posting today as 'hummingbird'
> wrote thus:
>
> [Chris Millbank's malicious nonsense binned]
>
>
> Franklin, if what you say is true, why is that the person on ACF
> who has received so many condemnations by other posters is YOU?
> ..going back several years. Your allegations about me and numerous
> others amount to pure projection.
>
> Why don't you tell James about two incidents several weeks ago
> when YOU attempted to hack into my file server to upload malware?
> I joke not. Or three days ago when you posted a URL to a file on
> my server to a multitude of newsgroups which generated hundreds
> of unwanted hits? I guess you were trying to crash it. Bad luck.
>
> Here's a random list of comments made by other people about you.
> It's an amazing insight into your evil, deranged mind
Chris, your allegations about me and my alleged activities are nothing more
than a self-serving recital of what you have actually been up to. Your
hypocrisy can be seen in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/822c37705e62cb65
You have made numerous false allegations about several people. For example
you are currently engaged in a childish campaign together with the sock
"Jeffrey Bloss" to pretend that Ron May and various other members of the
freeware project at Pricelessware are illegally giving away freeware. Your
bizarre allegations were answered by "BeAr Ederson" in the following post.
You have received very many other level-headed ripostes.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/20a681aaa8c2becd
You try and evade exposure by using X-No-Archive and were roundly denounced
for this some time ago when you were posting to u.p.m. as Hummingbird
(before you morphed into Aracari). This is what Billy said:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yexqcdw
There are vast numbers of posts denouncing your behavior in a.c.f. similar
to this posting by one of the longest-standing posters in the group, John
Corliss:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/a52000de7488ef2e
Yes, it's clear there is an interest in your IP address. Once it is known
then your appalling behavior might be brought to heel. James Hammerton
might be able to assist in this.
Franklin
The scourge of Pooh the cat
Franklinslime is a waste of skin and always has been.............
I don't waste time on him.
>"Franklin" from <alt.comp.freeware> posting today as 'hummingbird'
>wrote thus:
>
> [Franklin's malicious nonsense binned]
>
>
>Franklin, if what you say is true, why is that the person on ACF
>who has received so many condemnations by other posters is YOU?
>..going back several years. Your allegations about me and numerous
>others amount to pure projection.
>
>Why don't you tell James about two incidents several weeks ago
>when YOU attempted to hack into my file server to upload malware?
>I joke not. Or three days ago when you posted a URL to a file on
>my server to a multitude of newsgroups which generated hundreds
>of unwanted hits? I guess you were trying to crash it. Bad luck.
>
>Here's a random list of comments made by other people about you.
>It's an amazing insight into your evil, deranged mind:
>____________________________________________________
>> See also: http://franklin-socks.notlong.com/ <
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 21/Nov/2009:
>Franklin, my time on ACF has taught me one thing about you:
>_you have no idea what a fact is_
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 19/Nov/2009:
>Go back to obfuscating and dancing on pinheads, Franklin,
>when you're not trying to upload destructive malware to other
>peoples' private file servers.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 18/Nov/2009:
>"You are the bane of humanity and a complete waste of skin."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 13/Nov/2009:
>"Franklin deliberately uses the wrong TZ and clock time on his
>computer to deceive others as to where he's located but doesn't
>like being called out on it."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 10/Nov/2009:
>Further demonstrations of your asinine idiocy are not welcome.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster commenting about Franklin's sock allegations
>8/Oct/2009:
>"And of course he used mainly lies, innuendo, guilt by
>association,wild and unfounded accusations and smear campaigns to
>'prove' his theory, most of which he has since recanted by
>accusing others of being who *I* was supposed to be, just because
>I have not bothered him as of late.
>
>He is a cancer on acf."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 4/Jul/2009:
>Cookoo Cookoo Cookoo Cookoo
>Go speak in circles to someone who will pay attention.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 18/Nov/2008:
>"Your ability to project is amazing" "You are a vicious liar."
>"...you are a deluded egomaniac troll who doesn't care about this
>group. ...if someone says they are going to killfile you so they
>will be rid of your bullshit, your repeated nym-shifting, multiple
>times in a day, in an hour, whatever it takes to pop out again.
>That's a mental disease, son."
>"You are a poisonous troll, a liar, and an unstable loonie."
>"you are delusional, paranoid, lying, and an utter asshole..."
>"You are either incredibly, unbelievably stupid, or a vicious
>laying scumbag. Your choice"
>"You're really a sick little bastard, Franklin. Honestly,
>you should (but won't) get help."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster: 13/Nov/2008:
>"I've been here long before Franklin and have witnessed his
>blathering, nym shifting and off topic garbage for too long now."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 14/Nov/2008:
>"...what's left of your mind has turned to slimy mush, and
>since the bolt thru your neck came loose, your head is flopping
>about on your neck like a toffee apple on a broken stick"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 24/Sep/2008:
>"...you made a complete arse of yourself. Give it a rest"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 21/Jun/2008:
>"And you believe you're somehow "better"...with your
>incessant puerility and craven cowardice when someone
>shines a light on your own incompetence?"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to a Franklin sockpuppet 20/Aug/2008:
>No. You are Franklin. At one time, someone else said
>you were "the personification of pure evil."
>I believe they had you pegged. You *are* evil.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 24/Jun/2008:
>"You're the one nuzzling a net kook's nutsack just to try
>and win back some of the ground you pissed away with your
>4th grade caliber "wit".
>You're not funny. You're not clever. You're just pathetic.
>Now go finish off your idol Ari, brush your teeth, and go to bed.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 21/Jul/2008:
>Yes, I want to extend my thanks to Franklin for inviting the
>current horde of trolls from other newsgroups with his constant
>cross-posting.
>This current scourge is far worse than the sporge we were being
>inundated with earlier this year. Unfortunately the trash
>propogating to ACF is at the direct hands of humans rather than
>machines and I fear it's here to stay.
>
>You have succeeded in making ACF unusable in my view. Frankly,
>your insidious methods have been far worse than what we were
>subjected to by the other antagonists. You sir, are a first-class
>scoundrel.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster responds to above 21/Jul/2008:
>He's basically a waste of 02, huh? <G>
>
>I've never taken note of anything worthwhile that he's
>contributed. I suggest everyone just write him off as
>inconsequential and ignore his sorry self. If HB wants to continue
>to label his posts as forgeries, that's OK--at least newbies will
>have cause to wonder. It can't take long for anyone of at least
>average intelligence to see Franklin's mode and understand his
>role here.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 29/Jun/2008:
>You're such a pathetic cunt who gets its head handed to it so
>much, that you're left with nothing but burying your nose in a
>common troll's ass just to try and convince yourself you have a
>friend.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 29/Jun/2008:
>What misguided stretch of your fevered imagination is it that lead
>you to believe ANYONE wants to be your friend? You're a moron.
>The only animal that can even stand to be around you for more than
>17 seconds is another moron. And even then once you're done with
>the traditional moron greeting of drooling all over each other the
>relationship is over.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-AFN poster 30/Jun/2008 fed up with Franklin's crossposting:
>"errrmm.. what is it going to take, chappy.. a full on flame war
>to shut your yap or maybe just a few crim shots and a durn good
>arse kickin'.
>[...] I am thinking U might be yet another pisT miscreant
>shrieking at the thought of minimal attention.. tell me
>I got that wrong and prove me right, in one post!"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 7/Jul/2008:
>"You're the personification of pure evil.
>And, you're not fooling anyone."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 7/Jul/2008:
>"You worry about what Hummingbird does a lot. Are you in Love?"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 8/Jul/2008:
>"Can you please just NOT keep pissing into the group and starting
>fights"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 8/Jul/2008:
>"I've been reading this group for many years and seen many battles
>rage, but I've never felt the need to killfile anyone till now.
>Franklin, has the honor of being the only one that I ever placed
>in my plonk file."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 29/Dec/2007:
>"The bigger question is what is wrong with you? You are
>absolutely obsessed with hummingbird. It appears you are openly
>admiring him."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 12/Jul/2008:
>"You must be thoroughly bored. I wish you'd find another hobby."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster to Franklin 15/Jul/2008:
>"why don't you just stay in acf where you're not wanted."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster (Sietse Fliege) 24/Aug/2007:
>"Franklin, go try some freeware and post about it yourself.
>Beats boring everyone to death."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-ACF poster (Sietse Fliege) to Franklin 26/Aug/2007:
>"Look, I'm not playing your pathetic little game. I'm not gonna
>dignify your drivel with commenting it line for silly line.
>EOT, thank you very much."
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> See also: http://franklin-socks.notlong.com/
Toodles
--
Blitz the dog - I kill cats
Sharon Bonifray
# aracari # wrote:
>"Franklin" from <alt.comp.freeware> posting today as 'hummingbird'
>wrote thus:
>
> [Franklin's malicious nonsense binned]
>
>
>Franklin, if what you say is true, why is that the person on ACF
>who has received so many condemnations by other posters is YOU?
>..going back several years. Your allegations about me and numerous
>others amount to pure projection.
>
>Why don't you tell James about two incidents several weeks ago
>when YOU attempted to hack into my file server to upload malware?
>I joke not. Or three days ago when you posted a URL to a file on
>my server to a multitude of newsgroups which generated hundreds
>of unwanted hits? I guess you were trying to crash it. Bad luck.
>
>Here's a random list of comments made by other people about you.
>It's an amazing insight into your evil, deranged mind:
>____________________________________________________
>> See also: http://franklin-socks.notlong.com/ <
FUCK ALL YOU WHO DENIGRATE THE SOCK-GOD FRANKLIN!
Shema Yisrael Frank-Lin Eloheinu Frank-Lin Echad
Frank-Lin Hu Akbar
Credo in unum Frank-Lin, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et
terrae, visibilium omnium, et invisibilium. Et in unum Dominum
Jeffum Lin-Tonum
Ronnie May
{{more crap binned}}
Franklin:- why don't you do the world a favor and drop dead 10 times.
You are the bane of humanity and a complete waste of skin. Everybody on
A.C.F., no - everybody on Usenet - has had more than enough of you to
last a dozen lifetimes. You have brought nothing but friction and grief
to this newsgroup. Please go away.
<VBG>
--
Ronnie M.
Anything posted through x-privat.org or anonymous mail2news servers
like dizum.com, reece.net and others in my name is NOT a FORGERY,
In ACF, I post through news.sunsite.dk, x-privat.org and frell.
In other groups, only via eternal-september, unless I use a remailer.
Jeff Lin Ton
Hello Sharon, I'm Franklin's imaginary nephew and just like you I don't
exist.
Steady on, old girl. Go easy with the booze. Franklin's pleased to see he
has a fan club but the raging will have to stop. Do they have detox
treatments where you are?
Gotta go do my homewok.
Bye.
Jeff
--
Jeff http://www.imageno.com/0rao6tpuma79pic.html
Franklin
>Franklin wrote:
>
>
>{{more crap binned}}
>
>
>Franklin:- why don't you do the world a favor and drop dead 10 times.
>You are the bane of humanity and a complete waste of skin. Everybody on
>A.C.F., no - everybody on Usenet - has had more than enough of you to
>last a dozen lifetimes. You have brought nothing but friction and grief
>to this newsgroup. Please go away.
>
>
><VBG>
Hello Ron,
I didn't know you had such warm feelings for me. Fancy a date in a nice
quiet bar sometime. I will be in dusty old Texas in two weeks.
<VBG>
best rgds
Franklin