Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics
Johnny Asia
Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics
* 15:54 14 December 2009 by Michael Marshall and Michael Le Page
"Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public
opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence
involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a
century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of
a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has
been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.
If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behaviour of those
making them, it seems only fair to look at the behaviour of a few of
those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar
examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own
conclusions about who to trust.
1. Fun with the sun
In 1991, the journal Science published a paper by researchers Eigil
Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, then at the Danish Meteorological
Institute in Copenhagen. It included graphs that appeared to show a
remarkably close correlation between solar activity and terrestrial
temperatures � suggesting that other factors, such as carbon dioxide
levels, have little influence on global temperatures.
The graphs were seized on by climate change sceptics and have been
widely reproduced ever since. But according to Peter Laut of the
Technical University of Denmark in Lyngby, the close correlations in
the original graphs, and in updated versions published in 1995 and
2000, exist only because of what he describes as a "pattern of strange
errors".
Laut described his findings in a peer-reviewed paper (Journal of
Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol 65, p 801) and also
wrote them up in a less technical form for the geophysicists'
newspaper Eos (vol 85, p 370 (PDF)). His concerns about the 1991 paper
are shared by a number of leading climate scientists.
Outcome: Little action has been taken following publication of Laut's
papers. The 1991 paper is still frequently cited by climate deniers.
2. The great swindle
A television programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle was
commissioned by the British broadcaster Channel 4 and aired in 2007.
The documentary, written and directed by Martin Durkin, prompted a
voluminous complaint to the UK's broadcast regulator Ofcom, alleging
137 breaches of broadcasting regulations.
For instance, the programme showed a graph comparing temperature and
solar activity since 1550, based on a 1995 paper by Friis-Christensen
and Lassen. This was one of the graphs questioned by Peter Laut (see
above).
In the original graph, there was a gap in the solar activity line
between 1600 and 1700 because there were no sunspots at this time, as
confirmed by sunspot records. In the TV programme, this gap had
somehow been filled in. Friis-Christensen accused the programme makers
of fabricating the data.
The programme was also alleged to have misrepresented the views of
several scientists who were interviewed on camera.
Outcome: Ofcom upheld some complaints about scientists being
misrepresented, but decided that the breaches of factual accuracy did
not fall within its remit.
3. The Oregon petition
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a research centre in
the small town of Cave Junction; it says it conducts research into
"protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive
medicine and ageing". In 1998, it issued a petition urging the US
government to reject all limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The
petition was mailed to thousands of US scientists, who were asked to
sign it.
It was accompanied by an article entitled "Environmental effects of
increased atmospheric carbon dioxide". One of the authors, Willie
Soon, is a well-known climate sceptic. The article closely resembled
the style of articles from the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, down to the typeface. It had not
been published in that or any other journal, as the US National
Academy of Sciences made clear in a statement.
Despite intense scientific criticism (see here (PDF) and here, for
example) the petition attracted over 30,000 signatures � although the
organisers admitted that they did little to verify the respondents'
credentials, allowing obviously fake names like "Dr Geri Halliwell" to
be included.
Outcome: As of 2008, the petition was being recirculated. The
accompanying article has acquired an aura of respectability, having
finally been published in a journal, albeit not one specialising in
climatology: � the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
4. Peer review?
In 2008, the Forum on Physics and Society (FPS), a newsletter produced
by the American Physics Society, published an article entitled
"Climate sensitivity reconsidered". The article claimed that "the
IPCC's estimates may be excessive and unsafe" and that attempts to cut
CO2 emissions "are pointless, may be ill-conceived and could even be
harmful".
The article was written by Christopher Monckton, a British journalist
and consultant. Although apparently highly technical, the piece has
been strongly criticised by professional climate scientists, including
Gavin Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New
York.
The piece was reported by the US Science and Public Policy Institute
as having been "peer-reviewed".
The editors of FPS pointed out that, as was standard practice at the
journal, they had merely edited the piece without sending it out to
specialist climate scientists for peer review. A disclaimer was
subsequently added to the piece, clarifying that nothing in FPS was
peer-reviewed.
Outcome: In late 2009, Monckton embarked on a tour of North America to
promote his personal views on climate change.
5. No logo
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an independent think tank
chaired by the former British finance minister Nigel Lawson that
claims to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has
become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist and all too often
depressingly intolerant". So it is a little disappointing that a graph
in the banner on the organisation's homepage is so misleading.
That graph is a jazzed-up graph of average global temperatures since
2001 and shows, essentially, no trend. The implication is that global
temperatures are not increasing.
Of course, no conclusions can be drawn from such a short time span,
because temperatures vary so much from year to year anyway. You have
to look at several decades in order to pick out real trends. The UK
Met Office this week published data showing that the first decade of
the 2000s has been the warmest on record.
Outcome: On 3 December the British newspaper The Independent reported
that "an error by a graphic designer" in the graph had been corrected.
The larger issue of the misleadingly short time span has not been
addressed.
6. David Bellamy
Readers in the UK may remember botany lecturer David Bellamy as a
leading conservationist and a presenter of television programmes about
the environment and biodiversity. To give some idea of his commitment
to environmental issues, in 1983 he was jailed for blockading
Australia's Franklin River in protest at a proposed dam.
However, Bellamy has become a prominent global warming sceptic and has
made a number of notable claims in the media.
For instance, in 2005 he wrote a letter to New Scientist claiming that
most of the world's glaciers are growing, which is manifestly not the
case. In fact, around the world glaciers are melting three times as
fast as they were in the 1980s.
Then last year he claimed that, as a result of increased carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, "300,000 square kilometres of former desert
are now covered with trees". He cited New Scientist as the source for
this claim, so we combed our archive to find the evidence.
Outcome: We couldn't find any article making such a claim. On the
contrary, we found an alternative explanation for the greening.
Bellamy has never contacted us to acknowledge the error with the
glaciers or to point us to the source of the claim for the greening of
the desert.
7. Astroturfing
It's not just a kind of artificial grass: the word astroturfing also
refers to a form of propaganda.
Organisations promoting a particular viewpoint set about creating an
artificial "grassroots" movement, which appears to be spontaneous but
is in fact carefully planned by the organisation.
Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives select committee on
energy independence and global warming received a number of letters
opposing the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would set
limits on the country's greenhouse gas emissions. The letters were
purportedly from members of the public.
However, it then emerged that the letters were an example of
astroturfing: several of them had been faked.
Outcome: At a hearing of the House select committee, the president of
US lobbying firm Bonner and Associates apologised. The fake letters
were apparently created by a temporary employee.
8. Cosmic correlations
According to Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National
Space Center in Copenhagen, cosmic rays have a major affect on the
Earth's climate. He says that fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds,
warming the Earth.
In 1997, Svensmark claimed there was a correlation between cosmic ray
intensity and satellite measurements of total cloud cover since the
1980s. This apparent correlation depends on adjustments to the data,
however, and it does not hold up (PDF) when more recent cloud
measurements from 1996 onwards are included.
Svensmark has also pointed to an apparent correlation between
low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. But after 1995, the fit of
Svensmark's graph depends on a "correction" of satellite data, and the
satellite scientists say this is not justified. "It's dubious
manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis," says Joanna
Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London. Svensmark
does not accept this.
Recent independent studies suggest cosmic rays can affect cloudiness,
but not in the way Svensmark claims, and that their effect on climate
is insignificant. Direct satellite measurements rule them out as an
explanation for the recent warming.
Outcome: Svensmark wrote a book about his ideas, The Chilling Stars,
co-authored by Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to
1966. Despite the lack of scientific support, his claims remain
popular with climate deniers. Svensmark claims the world is cooling.
Well, let's see.
Read more: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
+
Pucker your lips for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Guitarist from the Future
bvallely
> "Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public
> opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence
> involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a
> century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of
> a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has
> been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.
The most damning facts revealed in the memos wasn't that Mann and
Jones cooked the books to "deny the decline" - but their Chicago
Politics style thuggery to destroy the lives and careers of anyone who
questioned their "data".
So, what's the left do? Why, double down on destroying the lives of
skeptics.
The Ivy Towers of Academia are built on sand.
pyjamarama
Indeed.
It was Henry Kissinger who noted, after spending some time in academia
teaching, that the reason academic battles were so pitched, ugly and
vicious was because there was so little at stake.
He was right, of course.
Now take that basic temperament and add billions in potential grant
money and the perceived power to "change the world" and you get the
behavior exhibited by Mann, Jones and the rest of the Climate
theoocracy.
They went from being tenured nobodies, significant, if at all, only in
their little ivory hothouses to "experts" who could "influence the
course of human history"...
For the first time in their cloistered lives they tasted real power
and it corrupted them thoroughly.
Same old story, same old song and dance.
The Christ
>
> The Ivy Towers of Academia are built on sand. >>
Tha's right! All that thar book learnin' ain't good fer nuthin'
Rush said it, I believe it and that settles it!
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Don't know idiocy and ignorance; it got "Bill" where he is today; a
pathetic fraud on Usenet.
bvallely
> > The Ivy Towers of Academia are built on sand. >>
> Tha's right! All that thar book learnin' ain't good fer nuthin'
Education is wonderful So is lively scientific debate. Sadly, the
current crop of Climatologists have attempted to turn themselves into
High Priests who Must Not Be Questioned.
> Rush said it, I believe it and that settles it!>
.
In what way is that sentence any more silly that "Al Gore said it, and
therefore it's settle science?"
ArmyOfDorkness
"bvallely" <bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1b31db1b-0ee0-4719...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
No one is saying that
Lamont Cranston
>
> The most damning facts revealed in the memos
...was that there were no damning facts.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
That won't stop fake Bill. He was born to lie for the GOP!
Peter Franks
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279-deniergate-turning-the-tables-on-climate-sceptics.html?full=true
>
> Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics
>
> * 15:54 14 December 2009 by Michael Marshall and Michael Le Page
>
>
> "Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public
> opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence
> involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a
> century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of
> a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has
> been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.
One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
hide the decline."
What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
Phlip
> One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
> director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
> science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
> the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
> hide the decline."
>
> What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
It means if you run the numbers one way, a decline is visible in the running
totals, and if you run them another way, it is not visible. In both situations
the raw numbers are still available for anyone (with the math skills) to
interpret. They are not hidden.
He is asking which way to run the numbers, and is using jargon like "trick",
"real", and "hide" to simplify the communication. The same way a programmer
would say "memory", or "debugging", when computers do not have subjective
"memories", and (usually) do not have insects inside them causing problems.
And always remember that if any scientist worthy of the title discovered a new
reason for the global warming we have all experienced over the last two decades,
they would be instant heroes in their community, and become rich and famous.
That's how science works - rewarding those who debunk the current theories.
Rick Saunders
wrote:
> "bvallely" <bvall...@aol.com> wrote :
>
> > The most damning facts revealed in the memos
>
> ...was that there were no damning facts.
Translation: LaLaLaLaLaLaLa!
Rick Saunders
> Peter Franks wrote:
> > One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
> > director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
> > science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
> > the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
> > hide the decline."
>
> > What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
>
> It means if you run the numbers one way, a decline is visible in the running
> totals, and if you run them another way, it is not visible. In both situations
> the raw numbers are still available for anyone (with the math skills) to
> interpret. They are not hidden.
The raw numbers aren't just hidden -- they have been deleted:
----
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.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and
then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were
collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals —
stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when
the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails
sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In
them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to
such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the
original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and
homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past
climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been
keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now
impossible.
US_Army_Nutcase
> Johnny Asia wrote:
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279-deniergate-turning-the-ta...
>
> > Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics
>
> > * 15:54 14 December 2009 by Michael Marshall and Michael Le Page
>
> > "Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public
> > opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence
> > involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a
> > century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of
> > a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has
> > been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.
> > ...
>
> One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
> director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
> science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
> the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
> hide the decline."
>
> What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
C.O.N.T.E.X.T, ignorant fucking buffoon, context. You flat-earthers
are real good at reading one line of an entire paragraph and
constructing an alternative reality out of that one sentence. Too bad
you miserable little dimwits are ALWAYS off the mark when it comes to
actual meaning of said sentence.
I know this is really all about you being able to keep your Dick
Compensation Device errrrrrrr Ford F-350 gassed up and running, as
it's the sole source of pride in your life (after all, who in their
right mind really wouldn't be for trying mitigate the pace of climate
change), but do try harder than to essentially what boils down to
making shit up.
Read on, driveling little dope; hope this helps you.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
"No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha”
phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning
quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature
reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie
from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The
paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper
on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’
is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so
that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use
the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”,
rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing
problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known
that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges
from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known
as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this
paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in
Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always
recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so
while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is
‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely
appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."
Tom P
> On Dec 15, 5:13 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>>> One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
>>> director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
>>> science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
>>> the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
>>> hide the decline."
>>> What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
>> It means if you run the numbers one way, a decline is visible in the running
>> totals, and if you run them another way, it is not visible. In both situations
>> the raw numbers are still available for anyone (with the math skills) to
>> interpret. They are not hidden.
>
> The raw numbers aren't just hidden -- they have been deleted:
> ----
> 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.
>
You do realize that the deleted data was simply a duplicate compilation
of archives from various weather stations? The original data is still
exactly where it was.
Rick Saunders
> You do realize that the deleted data was simply a duplicate compilation
> of archives from various weather stations?
The CRU doesn't seem to realize that. Did you
actually read the article?
---
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the
original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and
homogenised) data.”
----
> The original data is still exactly where it was.
So... where are those data? ("Data" is the plural
form of "datum.") The CRU doesn't know, so you
can do them a solid by pointing out the location.
Phlip
> You do realize that the deleted data was simply a duplicate compilation
> of archives from various weather stations? The original data is still
> exactly where it was.
Well, obviously, because those librul scientists are too lazy to go to each
weather station and steal its hard drive! They thought that simply erasing their
copy would be enough! But they can't fool us deniers!
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
wrote:
Turns out it meant nothing more than trying to corroborate unreliable
tree ring records with other indicators.
Phlip
>> What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
>
> Turns out it meant nothing more than trying to corroborate unreliable
> tree ring records with other indicators.
You mean you and me have personally felt the weather getting hotter over the
last two decades, but the tree rings have been saying a different story?
THE TREES ARE TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING!
and them LIBRUL SCIENTISTS ARE TRYING TO SILENCE THEM!!
Peter Franks
> On Dec 15, 1:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Johnny Asia wrote:
>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279-deniergate-turning-the-ta...
>>> Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics
>>> * 15:54 14 December 2009 by Michael Marshall and Michael Le Page
>>> "Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public
>>> opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence
>>> involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a
>>> century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of
>>> a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has
>>> been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.
>>> ...
>> One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
>> director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
>> science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
>> the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
>> hide the decline."
>>
>> What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
>
DO NOT TALK TO ME THAT WAY. I OFFER YOU RESPECT AND A WILLING
CONVERSATIONALIST. TAKE YOUR FILTHY LANGUAGE AND DISRESPECT ELSEWHERE.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>> One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
>> director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
>> science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
>> the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
>> hide the decline."
>>
>> What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
>
> It means if you run the numbers one way, a decline is visible in the
> running totals, and if you run them another way, it is not visible. In
> both situations the raw numbers are still available for anyone (with the
> math skills) to interpret. They are not hidden.
>
> He is asking which way to run the numbers, and is using jargon like
> "trick", "real", and "hide" to simplify the communication. The same way
> a programmer would say "memory", or "debugging", when computers do not
> have subjective "memories", and (usually) do not have insects inside
> them causing problems.
Debug is a representation of the cause.
Hide is a representation of what?
Phlip
>> He is asking which way to run the numbers, and is using jargon like
>> "trick", "real", and "hide" to simplify the communication. The same
>> way a programmer would say "memory", or "debugging", when computers do
>> not have subjective "memories", and (usually) do not have insects
>> inside them causing problems.
>
> Debug is a representation of the cause.
>
> Hide is a representation of what?
Apples and oranges. I was pointing out how a jargon word doesn't mean its
lay-person meaning.
Hide, in this case, just meant "smooth out". It did _not_ mean "hide from
liberals, to mislead them about this global cooling signal we discovered."
However, the will to believe is strong in you, so I don't expect you to try to
understand.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> On Dec 15, 5:13 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>> > One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
>> > director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
>> > science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
>> > the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's
>> > to hide the decline."
>>
>> > What does "hide the decline" mean to you?
>>
>> It means if you run the numbers one way, a decline is visible in the
>> running totals, and if you run them another way, it is not visible. In
>> both situations the raw numbers are still available for anyone (with
>> the math skills) to interpret. They are not hidden.
>
> The raw numbers aren't just hidden -- they have been deleted: ----
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Except that they're all over the place, since they were compiled from
thousands of sources to begin with.
And they were stored on magnetic tape and punchcards, using Fortran. I
doubt many banks keep their old records in such formats.
Not Sure
Yeah I'm surprised at how horribly the demented dipshits on the left
are handling these devastating emails. Just point and laugh at them as
less and less people buy into their alarmist lies.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
You know, it's a waste of time trying to parody right wingers. They
moved well beyond self-parody a year ago.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>
>>> He is asking which way to run the numbers, and is using jargon like
>>> "trick", "real", and "hide" to simplify the communication. The same
>>> way a programmer would say "memory", or "debugging", when computers
>>> do not have subjective "memories", and (usually) do not have insects
>>> inside them causing problems.
>>
>> Debug is a representation of the cause.
>>
>> Hide is a representation of what?
>
> Apples and oranges. I was pointing out how a jargon word doesn't mean
> its lay-person meaning.
>
> Hide, in this case, just meant "smooth out". It did _not_ mean "hide
> from liberals, to mislead them about this global cooling signal we
> discovered."
So, what you are saying is that:
One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
hide the decline."
could be read as:
One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's
director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the
science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for
the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to
*smooth* the decline."
?!
How does smoothing apply here? On the face, it doesn't seem to. Can
you provide substantive evidence (e.g. the before and after graphs) that
show a smoothed decline?
Tom P
> On Dec 15, 6:10 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
>> You do realize that the deleted data was simply a duplicate compilation
>> of archives from various weather stations?
>
> The CRU doesn't seem to realize that. Did you
> actually read the article?
> ---
> original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and
> ----
>> The original data is still exactly where it was.
>
> So... where are those data? ("Data" is the plural
> form of "datum.") The CRU doesn't know, so you
> can do them a solid by pointing out the location.
Uh, the weather stations?
Bill Ward
> Rick Saunders wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 6:10 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>
>>> You do realize that the deleted data was simply a duplicate
>>> compilation of archives from various weather stations?
>>
>> The CRU doesn't seem to realize that. Did you actually read the
>> article?
>> ---
>> In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the
>> original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and
>> homogenised) data.”
>> ----
>>> The original data is still exactly where it was.
>>
>> So... where are those data? ("Data" is the plural form of "datum.")
>> The CRU doesn't know, so you can do them a solid by pointing out the
>> location.
>
> Uh, the weather stations?
The Russians found some raw data, but it looks like CRU cooked it:
<excerpt>
Russian meteorological station data did not substantiate the global-
warming theory,' stated semi-official RIA Novosti news agency.
It went further in saying the Hadley Centre 'probably tampered with
Russian-climate data' by using statistics from only a quarter of
available weather stations in its report.
'Over 40 per cent of Russian territory was not included in global-
temperature calculations for reasons other than the lack of
meteorological stations and observations,' claimed Kommersant newspaper,
owned by pro-Kremlin oligarch Allisher Usmanov.
It was alleged the Hadley data known as HadCRUT used incomplete findings
from Russian met stations 'far more often than those providing complete
observations'.
'When choosing between stations with breaks in measurements and those
with regular measurements in same region, HadCRUT would include the
station with gaps in information but with a more obvious picture of
warming,' said Kommersant.
And data was also skewed to include stations in large populated areas
more frequently than the correct data of remote stations, it was alleged.
One account of the 21 page report said: 'The scale of global warming was
exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5
per cent of the world's land mass.'
<excerpt>
Now who could have predicted that?
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Say, bubbles, what say we just put in the bit that you "excerpted"?
Sound like a plan?
"The report was seized on by media with close ties to the Kremlin, which
is opposed to rigid new curbs on carbon emissions demanded by many
Western countries at the Danish summit.
Most of Russia's income is derived from oil and gas, which means its
economy could be hit by curbs on carbon emissions.
'Russian meteorological station data did not substantiate the global-
warming theory,' stated semi-official RIA Novosti news agency."
Now piss off, you fucking lying corporate whore.
Bill Ward
That's the best you can do? No actual rebuttal of the data manipulation,
just dumb, unimaginative, attempted insults? I expect you to at least
show some creativity and improve the quality of your invective.
Otherwise, you're just boring. Shape up!
Phlip
> warming theory,' stated semi-official RIA Novosti news agency.
If any place ain't warming up, that'd be it!