Since no one else seems to want to post it
-
UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists [^] There's your answer about what happened with the UK inquiry. This came from the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee and is the first of 3 inquiries to have been released. The Committee said, "they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming" So, there you go.
OK, so there ARE two kinds of data, the original, and the non original. (The original has ben 'lost' of course). And you expect us to believe the data hadnt ben modified? If it hadnt been there would only be the original data.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
My opinion has been: Mr. Jones was inept in his version control of data and code. This was not important until matters of great pith and moment hung upon his findings. Compliance with requests for data and code would reveal the shambles, so his initial reaction was to refuse. Reports of the refusal in numerous blogs triggered an avalanche of (largely frivolous, I suspect) requests. The emails merely show that he had succumbed to the culture of politicized science. The above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW. Perhaps had Mr. Jones called upon the UEA's School of Computing Sciences and School of Economics, he could have obtained professional help with the management of Information Systems and with practical Statistical Analysis.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
e above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW.
Oh really? Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured. In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 cant have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in th etemperature record.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
e above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW.
Oh really? Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured. In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 cant have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in th etemperature record.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured.
There are other sources. Mr. Jones' ineptitude has no impact on the case for (or against) AGW.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 can't have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in the temperature record.
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
e above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW.
Oh really? Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured. In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 cant have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in th etemperature record.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Right, because one man's opinion is more important than years of research and numerous scientific studies. In other news, Al Gore has decreed that the Earth is going to burn up, Alex Jones has decreed that we're all political slaves, and Chicken Little says the sky is falling. If someone says it, it must be true! Seriously, you're basing your argument on a man whose team has been discredited, re-credited, discredited, re-credited, discredited-- How many times has it been so far? Whenever his/their evidence supports your cause, you point to it, and whenever it points the other way, you say it's garbage. Not to mention the repeated assumption that the CRU study is the only one out there, and that if their study is discredited, the entire theory has been proven wrong. You're free to argue any point of view you want here, but come on... A little consistency and common sense?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Right, because one man's opinion is more important than years of research and numerous scientific studies. In other news, Al Gore has decreed that the Earth is going to burn up, Alex Jones has decreed that we're all political slaves, and Chicken Little says the sky is falling. If someone says it, it must be true! Seriously, you're basing your argument on a man whose team has been discredited, re-credited, discredited, re-credited, discredited-- How many times has it been so far? Whenever his/their evidence supports your cause, you point to it, and whenever it points the other way, you say it's garbage. Not to mention the repeated assumption that the CRU study is the only one out there, and that if their study is discredited, the entire theory has been proven wrong. You're free to argue any point of view you want here, but come on... A little consistency and common sense?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
A little consistency
He has that. "If I believe it, the evidence I will point to will support me and I will ignore all other evidence." He's been very consistent. If the data over 30 years says warming, but 15 years says none, he uses 15 years. Statistics are fun, you ignore the right ones and you can support anything.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured.
There are other sources. Mr. Jones' ineptitude has no impact on the case for (or against) AGW.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 can't have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in the temperature record.
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
There are other sources
Being GISS and NCDC, both of whose teams were in constant communicaiton with Jones over the decades sharing 'tricks' and so on thus making their findings equally suspect. As for THEIR original data it is at least available. And if you look at it the case for AGW actually collapses since you can see the obvious manipulation. In fact the raw station data sets (and John Daleys site is a good source) actualy show an inconsistent pattern of somw warming, some cooling.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Well nows your chance. If you make statements like 'the recent CRU emails have no impact on the validity of AGW theory' then you had better step up and defend it with aome solid facts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Right, because one man's opinion is more important than years of research and numerous scientific studies. In other news, Al Gore has decreed that the Earth is going to burn up, Alex Jones has decreed that we're all political slaves, and Chicken Little says the sky is falling. If someone says it, it must be true! Seriously, you're basing your argument on a man whose team has been discredited, re-credited, discredited, re-credited, discredited-- How many times has it been so far? Whenever his/their evidence supports your cause, you point to it, and whenever it points the other way, you say it's garbage. Not to mention the repeated assumption that the CRU study is the only one out there, and that if their study is discredited, the entire theory has been proven wrong. You're free to argue any point of view you want here, but come on... A little consistency and common sense?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Do you realise what an about face this was for Jones, to say the things he did in the Mail interview? For years he has worked as the OFFICIAL provder of data to the IPCC. The WORLDS EXPERT BODY on GW. He is probably one of the singly most important people in this field. For him to say, after being suspended pendig the enquiry, that: 1) The recent warming is stastically indifferent from the preceding three. (In temrs of rate and magnitude) 2) There has been no statistical warming since 1995. 3) The scientific debate is open. Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics. All sceptics want is cool headed debate and a better understanding of the science. What they dont want is endless fear stories and hysterical ranting directed against them. Which is too often the case. Jones has effectively given them this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
you say it's garbage
THats a lie. Prove it if you can, if not retract.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Do you realise what an about face this was for Jones, to say the things he did in the Mail interview? For years he has worked as the OFFICIAL provder of data to the IPCC. The WORLDS EXPERT BODY on GW. He is probably one of the singly most important people in this field. For him to say, after being suspended pendig the enquiry, that: 1) The recent warming is stastically indifferent from the preceding three. (In temrs of rate and magnitude) 2) There has been no statistical warming since 1995. 3) The scientific debate is open. Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics. All sceptics want is cool headed debate and a better understanding of the science. What they dont want is endless fear stories and hysterical ranting directed against them. Which is too often the case. Jones has effectively given them this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
you say it's garbage
THats a lie. Prove it if you can, if not retract.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics.
It's remarkable because he agrees with you? Do you not see the inconsistency here? The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics.
It's remarkable because he agrees with you? Do you not see the inconsistency here? The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's remarkable because he agrees with you?
Yeah, he phoned me up befoire hand and asked me what to say.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do you not see the inconsistency here?
With me and about half the population?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
No, but he has at least expressed his doubts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's remarkable because he agrees with you?
Yeah, he phoned me up befoire hand and asked me what to say.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do you not see the inconsistency here?
With me and about half the population?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
No, but he has at least expressed his doubts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No, but he has at least expressed his doubts.
I'll be interested to see your reaction if he changes his stance again... Would you still consider him a valuable source if he spoke in favor of the AGW theory?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Bob Emmett wrote:
There are other sources
Being GISS and NCDC, both of whose teams were in constant communicaiton with Jones over the decades sharing 'tricks' and so on thus making their findings equally suspect. As for THEIR original data it is at least available. And if you look at it the case for AGW actually collapses since you can see the obvious manipulation. In fact the raw station data sets (and John Daleys site is a good source) actualy show an inconsistent pattern of somw warming, some cooling.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Well nows your chance. If you make statements like 'the recent CRU emails have no impact on the validity of AGW theory' then you had better step up and defend it with aome solid facts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Being GISS and NCDC ... As for THEIR original data it is at least available.
As I said, there are other sources.
fat_boy wrote:
And if you look at it, the case for AGW actually collapses since you can see the obvious manipulation. In fact, the raw station data sets (and John Daleys site is a good source) actually show an inconsistent pattern of some warming, some cooling.
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
fat_boy wrote:
Well now's your chance.
My chance? I was suggesting that that you take up the subject of warming trends with someone who has studied climate science.
fat_boy wrote:
If you make statements like 'the recent CRU emails have no impact on the validity of AGW theory' then you had better step up and defend it with some solid facts.
The shenanigans of Jones does not disprove his hypothesis. I must leave it to someone who has studied climate science to disprove.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists [^] There's your answer about what happened with the UK inquiry. This came from the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee and is the first of 3 inquiries to have been released. The Committee said, "they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming" So, there you go.
So what ? Anyone who wants to believe otherwise will feel this proves the conspiracy. I;d have said that even if I was posting before fat boy proved it true
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.