Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign
James
MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking for since 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre associated with the UK Met. Office have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]
Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the 'hockey stick'. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre (CRU), in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.
This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Met. Office have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Met. Office with incomplete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public - including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Met. Office explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
Roger Coppock
> Posted by jennifer, September 30th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Jennifer has an active imagination and writes interesting stories in
her blog.
enigma
insist on digging deeper graves.
We can always count on you two for trash postings.
ecotretas
crime against humanity. Madoff's fraud is like a little ant here...
Ecotretas
On 30 Set, 03:24, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> Posted by jennifer, September 30th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
>
Green Turtle
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:ab1f4d0a-ed12-4c0b...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
So, instead of debating the issue and talking about science, your ONLY
response here is ad-hominem attack?
You guys really crack me up! All this talk about our side supposedly having
no science.
Looking at the posts here, it would seem the VAST majority of your side
response to any information on the subject of data for global warming is
simply responded to by ad-hominem attacks?
What is it with your side that seems to refuse ANY type of debate on this
data issue?
Should not every scientist be happy that McIntyre FINALLY got the data? I
mean, how can you possibility stand here with a straight face and not
respect the UP-HILL battle this guy had to have to finally get this data?
Don't you care about the truth here?
How can you stand here and accept the idea that the "dog" ate my homework
excuse?
How can you EVEN begin to formulate ANY reasonable position on this issue
and agree with the idea that the data is NOT to be provided to the public?
How can ANY reasoned person accept this stance? I just am at a loss at to
what makes your kind of people tick brain wise? I really wish somebody could
explain to me the stance that your side seems to have so often? What is it
about folks that don't enjoy, embrace, indorse, and welcome with opens arms
more people looking at the data? What is the problem here?
Why not welcome more eyes and people looking at this data? Why be scared of
having a real debate in the real truth?
Don't you want the real data? Don't you want the real science here?
After all is said and done, you come back and simply attack the messenger?
What exactly in that article are you disagreeing with? Really???
As a fact the matter this kind of attitude that means that you guys are
losing the debate in the public minds.
This change is especially noticeable among the conservative circles. It's
absolutely incredible how much this debate has changed in 3 years. Three
years ago you'd see FEW if any articles really critical of global warming on
conservative sites like the National Review. In fact back then the lack of
articles has to make one questioned as to whether that site is really
conservative at all.
However today we see more and more articles appearing on what I call more
mainstream type of conservative sites (what I say mainstream, I don't mean
mainstream to everyone, I mean mainstream to large blocks of conservative
voters).
3, or 4 years ago these people's hearts and minds were up for grabs by your
side on this issue. Because of your insistence and continued idea of NOT
discussing these issues but only using ad Hominem attacks you've actually
lost this group of people over to our side.
I mean how can you possibly be worried about someone like McIntyre getting
his hands on some data? Why argued data and the truth? But worse you should
be ashamed towards people that don't want him to get the data!
Until you folks starting engaging in real debates and move away from the ad
Hominem attacks then you're going to continue to lose more people to our
side. And, it clear that is happening right now, even in the senate now, it
looks like the support for the global warming bill is waning. There's now
talk of not doing a vote on this, and letting the environmental protection
agency take this over.
Super Turtle.
James
Yes, it is a blog and it's an opinion that many of us share. That's why I posted it. This is the very thing I said would happen years ago. That some good scientists would abandon the science for an agenda and put science in a bad light. It's an "I told you so moment" and of course they are not the only ones. If one proceeds with the real science, then it doesn't matter what us mortals think but if it's an agenda using science as the vehicle to accomplish it then science has been tarnished by it by those that bastardized it. It's shameful and wrong.
Honest scientists should have told people like Gore and other enviros to butt out at the get go but they prefer not to enter a PR fray except for the corrupt ones like Hansen who are scientists. And now it has spread. I noticed no one from your side said anything about his remarks on trials for sceptics.
Perhaps you should think about what a scientist should be rather than if he/she is for you or agin you.
It's an eye opener isn't it?
tunderbar
You will be denying the fraud right up until Briffa and Mann hand in
their resignations.
Michael Dobony
Part of the scientific method requires analysis of ALL data and that the
full data set be available for examination and duplication. If GW
proponents are basing their claims on honest and legitimate data, they
should have no problems with having their data examined by peers. So why do
they repeatedly restrict the data and refuse to follow strict data
collection standards?
Ouroboros Rex
> Posted by jennifer,
..insane right wing liar.
Ouroboros Rex
Jenny's a serial liar, just like you are.
Ouroboros Rex
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
> news:ab1f4d0a-ed12-4c0b...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 29, 7:24 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> Posted by jennifer, September 30th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
>
>> Jennifer has an active imagination and writes interesting stories in
> her blog.
>
> So, instead of debating the issue and talking about science, your ONLY
> response here is ad-hominem attack?
Jenny expects to be taken seriously. Pointing out her lies is not
fallacious.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Sep 30, 1:02 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 7:24 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Posted by jennifer, September 30th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
>>
>> Jennifer has an active imagination and writes interesting stories in
>> her blog.
>
> You will be denying the fraud
He has spotted the fraud, just like we all spotted you.
Ouroboros Rex
> Even if he resigns, he and the climate gang should be trialed in a
> crime against humanity.
Stupid, made-up crap.
Ouroboros Rex
No, it's a lie.
What will you do about all the other hockey sticks? lol
Ouroboros Rex
Tell us again how the sun can't be more than 10,000 years old, mikey.
erschro...@gmail.com
> Posted by jennifer, September 30th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
>
> MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
>
> Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data - which he had been asking for since 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre associated with the UK Met. Office have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]
>
McIntyre has absolutely no scientific education, degree, or
background.
> Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the 'hockey stick'.
Which was refuted by the National Academy of Sciences.
> But scientists at the Climate Research Centre (CRU), in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.
>
> This week's claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Met. Office have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare.
>
Next, a philosopher will instruct cardiac surgeons on the best
techniques for heart bypass surgery.
> This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Met. Office with incomplete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public - including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
>
> It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Met. Office explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yl3f9sj
It is time McIntyre left the science to the scientists. He just keeps
embarrassing himself.
erschro...@gmail.com
> Even if he resigns, he and the climate gang should be trialed in a
> crime against humanity. Madoff's fraud is like a little ant here...
> Ecotretas
Ooh, a leading contender for "Idiot of the Week" and a rookie at that!
erschro...@gmail.com
By "many" you mean those who are too pig-headed or too dumb to
understand science.
>That's why I posted it. This is the very thing I said would happen years ago. That some good scientists would abandon the science for an agenda and put science in a bad light.
Uh-huh. If you think the nut jobs you keep citing are "good
scientists" then Windows ME is a "good operating system."
>It's an "I told you so moment" and of course they are not the only ones. If one proceeds with the real science, then it doesn't matter what us mortals think but if it's an agenda using science as the vehicle to accomplish it then science has been tarnished by it by those that bastardized it. It's shameful and wrong.
>
> Honest scientists should have told people like Gore and other enviros to butt out at the get go but they prefer not to enter a PR fray except for the corrupt ones like Hansen who are scientists. And now it has spread. I noticed no one from your side said anything about his remarks on trials for sceptics.
>
How about if people like McIntyre also butt out, as he is not a
scientist.
tunderbar
You are the one who is sounding a tad embarrassed. And you should be,
along with Mann and Briffa.
tunderbar
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
Well, Leonardo Dicaprio is a scientist... isn't he?
Eric Gisin
He spams usenet with his obsessive delusion that the earth is warming.
Like the rest of the alt.g-w Troll Trinity, he is not a scientist.
They cannot refute the logic of skeptics so they just insult everyone.
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:ab1f4d0a-ed12-4c0b...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
James
By that you mean anyone who hasn't drank the kool aid of Al Gore
>
>
>>That's why I posted it. This is the very thing I said would happen
>>years ago. That some good scientists would abandon the science for an
>>agenda and put science in a bad light.
>
> Uh-huh. If you think the nut jobs you keep citing are "good
> scientists" then Windows ME is a "good operating system."
If Jennifer is a nut, I bless her lucid moment and agree with what she is saying.
>
>
>>It's an "I told you so moment" and of course they are not the only
>>ones. If one proceeds with the real science, then it doesn't matter
>>what us mortals think but if it's an agenda using science as the
>>vehicle to accomplish it then science has been tarnished by it by
>>those that bastardized it. It's shameful and wrong.
>>
>> Honest scientists should have told people like Gore and other
>> enviros to butt out at the get go but they prefer not to enter a PR
>> fray except for the corrupt ones like Hansen who are scientists. And
>> now it has spread. I noticed no one from your side said anything
>> about his remarks on trials for sceptics.
>>
>
> How about if people like McIntyre also butt out, as he is not a
> scientist.
No honest scientist would ask him to. Non objective people like you would and still wish he would just disappear.
erschro...@gmail.com
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> "erschroedin...@gmail.com" <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > It's an eye opener isn't it?
>
>
Nobody ever brings up Gore but you denialists. Further, the "Gore
says GW is real and he's not a scientist so GBW is false" is sheer
idiocy and defies all logic. Oh, sorry, I guess logic works
differently in your reality than in ours.