Climategate Part 2
Discussion
Blib said:
He was on the world service last night. Giving air to the views of the warmists and saying nothing about the content of he emails. He ended with a thinly disguised attack on FOIA2011 .
I don't recall the BBC ignoring the contents of Wikileaks and waxing lyrical about how awful it is all that information had been 'stolen'<5131> Shukla/IGES:
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policy-makers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<3111> Watson/UEA:
I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
So they still can't make a climate model that can actually predict worth a damn.
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policy-makers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<3111> Watson/UEA:
I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
So they still can't make a climate model that can actually predict worth a damn.
FOIA 2011 Searchable Database now online http://foia2011.org/
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Only the original downloader knows but I would guess these were available all along only not released. We may never know.
If you recall from Climategate 1 TB there was a statement regarding the amount of material that was supposedly obtained, there was speculation that there was considerably more and that it would be released later at an appropriate juncture.We even discussed the possibility on here
turbobloke said:
We did indeed, and there is still a mass of hidden/encrypted/unavailable material dangling over the noses of all parties. It will act as a kind of Sword of Damocles for the faithful.
But on the other hand "FOIA 2011" holding it back for 2 years and not releasing passwords is making his/her self(s) look a hypocrite.FOIA2011 said:
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.
kerplunk said:
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Only the original downloader knows but I would guess these were available all along only not released. We may never know.
If you recall from Climategate 1 TB there was a statement regarding the amount of material that was supposedly obtained, there was speculation that there was considerably more and that it would be released later at an appropriate juncture.We even discussed the possibility on here
turbobloke said:
We did indeed, and there is still a mass of hidden/encrypted/unavailable material dangling over the noses of all parties. It will act as a kind of Sword of Damocles for the faithful.
But on the other hand "FOIA 2011" holding it back for 2 years and not releasing passwords is making his/her self(s) look a hypocrite.FOIA2011 said:
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.
If that is the case, that is a little noble, don’t you think?
rovermorris999 said:
How about discussing the content of the emails KP? Never mind how they came to be in the public domain, you have to admit they're pretty damning.
Because how else can you disregard them, if not by complaining by how they were released, rather than what was released. It seems playing a political games only allowed if you are connected to the UEA.rovermorris999 said:
How about discussing the content of the emails KP? Never mind how they came to be in the public domain, you have to admit they're pretty damning.
Why do you reply with a request that I talk about something else - are you experiencing discomfort?On the email contents that I've seen - so far so 'meh'
chris watton said:
kerplunk said:
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Only the original downloader knows but I would guess these were available all along only not released. We may never know.
If you recall from Climategate 1 TB there was a statement regarding the amount of material that was supposedly obtained, there was speculation that there was considerably more and that it would be released later at an appropriate juncture.We even discussed the possibility on here
turbobloke said:
We did indeed, and there is still a mass of hidden/encrypted/unavailable material dangling over the noses of all parties. It will act as a kind of Sword of Damocles for the faithful.
But on the other hand "FOIA 2011" holding it back for 2 years and not releasing passwords is making his/her self(s) look a hypocrite.FOIA2011 said:
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.
If that is the case, that is a little noble, don’t you think?
On another tack, the police do it all the time - let the buggers wriggle and hang themselves in the process.
kerplunk said:
rovermorris999 said:
How about discussing the content of the emails KP? Never mind how they came to be in the public domain, you have to admit they're pretty damning.
Why do you reply with a request that I talk about something else - are you experiencing discomfort?On the email contents that I've seen - so far so 'meh'
Diderot said:
You really take the biscuit chap.
"Jones: [on FOI and temperature data]
”Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
yep, meh.....
Just imagine the unified uproar if this was an email from a 'Big Oil' company!
kerplunk said:
rovermorris999 said:
How about discussing the content of the emails KP? Never mind how they came to be in the public domain, you have to admit they're pretty damning.
Why do you reply with a request that I talk about something else - are you experiencing discomfort?On the email contents that I've seen - so far so 'meh'
chris watton said:
Alternatively, they could be holding back because the information is of a more personal and sensitive nature, and don’t want to release it yet, to see if what they have made available for public consumption does open the debate more than it has been.
If that is the case, that is a little noble, don’t you think?
Can't rule it out I suppose but it's a bit fanciful really isn't it with all the starving baby africans supposedly at stake.If that is the case, that is a little noble, don’t you think?
What about the 5,000 "picked from keyword searches" - did it take two years to do that? The last tranche was done in a matter of days.
Daily Mash take on it...
Article said:
CARBON dioxide has resigned from being a gas, it has been confirmed.
The move came after a fresh batch of leaked emails between climate scientists showed that CO2 had been lying about what it is and what it does.
According to one of the emails, sent by Julian Cook, a researcher at the University of East Anglia, carbon dioxide had got drunk and admitted it had made the whole thing up.
Cook adds: "He says he's not even a gas, never mind a greenhouse gas. He says his name's Brian and he used to work for Kwik Fit in Norwich.
The move came after a fresh batch of leaked emails between climate scientists showed that CO2 had been lying about what it is and what it does.
According to one of the emails, sent by Julian Cook, a researcher at the University of East Anglia, carbon dioxide had got drunk and admitted it had made the whole thing up.
Cook adds: "He says he's not even a gas, never mind a greenhouse gas. He says his name's Brian and he used to work for Kwik Fit in Norwich.
kerplunk said:
Can't rule it out I suppose but it's a bit fanciful really isn't it with all the starving baby africans supposedly at stake.
As opposed to 'your side' using footage of "starving baby Africans" and the lone Polar Bear sitting precariously on a slither of ice, to highlight their/your cause?rovermorris999 said:
No, I'm staggered that you are so blinkered. I thought you might be able to admit, grudgingly, that the whole thing might, just might, not be so 'settled' as you seem to believe. In fact, it stinks. 'On the fence', my arse! It's you who should be suffering discomfort, not me. I've always been open to the science when conducted in the manner in which I was taught it. Perhaps you should try it.
Oh look a hot-headed self-aggrandizing sceptic spinning words into my mouth. I'm so surprised at this turn of events.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff