Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
Guarding evidence...sounds very unscientific!
Of course! More below on access to data gathered using public funds.There was no sign that the enquiries had done a thorough job, rather that the terms were too limited, the process was rushed and failed to do the job properly, as revealed at the time. For example, less than gushing praise was published in 'New Scientist' for the HoCS&TC inquiry. Emphasis on the last three extracts is mine, not the article's.
"in an unexpected turn of events, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has placed more blame for the debacle on the university than on the scientists"
"this verdict, rushed out before parliament is dissolved for the upcoming general election, puts the official university inquiry launched last December in a strange position".
"The MPs found that the leaked emails reveal that a “culture of withholding information appears to have pervaded CRU [that] we consider unacceptable”. Some information “may have been deleted”, possibly in breach of the law."
"The MPs exonerate Jones and his colleagues on the more lurid charges, but admit they did not have the time to go into some other matters."
" 'We would have preferred to carry out a wider inquiry into the science of global warming itself,' they say."
"The MPs say the government should review the rules for giving the public access to data 'collected and analysed with UK public money'."
.
This link below is to a PDF file with a review of the Climategate inquiries.carried out for the GWPF. It notes, for example, that oral testimony from UEA CRU staff was accepted at face value with surprise at a lack of any due diligence attempt to contact e.g. Journal editors (plural) on allegations relating to peer review. This was ironic in view of the appointment of Dr Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Nature, to the Russell panel. This was rightly questioned at the time. "Mike's Nature trick" for example as this was/is the journal responsible for the publication of two of the key papers in the Climategate affair: Jones’ 1990 study on urban heat islands, and the infamous 1998 Hockey Stick paper. When the panel was announced, Sir Muir Russell had made much of the independence of the panellists.
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-report...
As always it's make your own mind up time.
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Well done some politics (keep it up) 
I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
This was a better bit........I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
"In these politically charged circumstances, there is no safe space for the facts to retreat to. That was made clear by the so-called “climategate” scandal of 2009, when a series of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia was held up as evidence that the scientific evidence was being distorted to fit a political agenda. The emails showed no such thing. What they did reveal is that in an environment of highly politicised scepticism, climate scientists were forced to think about guarding the evidence against opponents looking for any excuse to discredit it."
Maybe they read PHClimate scientists are fully convinced that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and that humans are the primary cause...global action is required, and now...but, no, you can’t see the evidence. Odd, that. If I was convinced by the data I would be stuffing the inboxes of the sceptics full it.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-cl...
And what has become of it eh sceptics?
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 20th August 21:20
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Well done some politics (keep it up)
I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
This was a better bit........I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
"In these politically charged circumstances, there is no safe space for the facts to retreat to. That was made clear by the so-called “climategate” scandal of 2009, when a series of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia was held up as evidence that the scientific evidence was being distorted to fit a political agenda. The emails showed no such thing. What they did reveal is that in an environment of highly politicised scepticism, climate scientists were forced to think about guarding the evidence against opponents looking for any excuse to discredit it."
Maybe they read PHClimate scientists are fully convinced that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and that humans are the primary cause...global action is required, and now...but, no, you can’t see the evidence. Odd, that. If I was convinced by the data I would be stuffing the inboxes of the sceptics full it.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-cl...
And what has become of it eh sceptics?
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 20th August 21:20
And what has happened in the past 7 years? Nothing remarkable, from a climate science perspective.
kerplunk said:
Alas your memes are growing old and knackered. Consider your inbox stuffed 7 years ago:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-cl...
And what has become of it eh sceptics?
note the date. remember the "pause" ? do you think climategate was all about the data ?https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-cl...
And what has become of it eh sceptics?
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 20th August 21:20
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Well done some politics (keep it up)
I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
This was a better bit........I found this bit amusing............
"In private correspondence, the UEA scientists talked about presentational “tricks” for describing the data and the need to favour certain outlets for publication over others. They looked out for their friends and they were wary of their enemies: that’s politics. There was nothing wrong with the science, as was confirmed by an extensive series of inquiries into the affair. But the emails betrayed the scientists’ awareness that the idea of a consensus on manmade climate change was under concerted attack. So they went out of their way to shore up the consensus. Which, when revealed, confirmed to their opponents that the consensus was a sham"
"In these politically charged circumstances, there is no safe space for the facts to retreat to. That was made clear by the so-called “climategate” scandal of 2009, when a series of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia was held up as evidence that the scientific evidence was being distorted to fit a political agenda. The emails showed no such thing. What they did reveal is that in an environment of highly politicised scepticism, climate scientists were forced to think about guarding the evidence against opponents looking for any excuse to discredit it."
Maybe they read PHClimate scientists are fully convinced that the climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and that humans are the primary cause...global action is required, and now...but, no, you can’t see the evidence. Odd, that. If I was convinced by the data I would be stuffing the inboxes of the sceptics full it.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-cl...
And what has become of it eh sceptics?
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 20th August 21:20
And what has happened in the past 7 years? Nothing remarkable, from a climate science perspective.
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
Alas your memes are growing old and knackered. Consider your inbox stuffed 7 years ago:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-cl...
And what has become of it eh sceptics?
note the date. remember the "pause" ? do you think climategate was all about the data ?https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-cl...
And what has become of it eh sceptics?
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 20th August 21:20
robinessex said:
"Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record"
And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
I'm still not entirely sure whether you're a parody or not.And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
durbster said:
robinessex said:
"Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record"
And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
I'm still not entirely sure whether you're a parody or not.And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
"Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record"
And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
I'm still not entirely sure whether you're a parody or not.And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
telecat said:
It's pretty much the case that Politicans and the scientists they fund like to limit the data set as it makes their case look better. Widen the Data set and statements like "Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record" do not stand up so well.
Is that the Tory politicians? Fiddling the data? Part of the conspiracy? JRM and other darlings of the right saying nothing about this? Actually complicit in it?The cognitive dissonance going on for you lot must be mind-melting
LoonyTunes said:
telecat said:
It's pretty much the case that Politicans and the scientists they fund like to limit the data set as it makes their case look better. Widen the Data set and statements like "Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record" do not stand up so well.
Is that the Tory politicians? Fiddling the data? Part of the conspiracy? JRM and other darlings of the right saying nothing about this? Actually complicit in it?The cognitive dissonance going on for you lot must be mind-melting
telecat said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
"Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record"
And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
I'm still not entirely sure whether you're a parody or not.And the 'start' point for this record? I know, lets pick a date in the 4.5billion years age of the planet to start, one that will inevitably be low enough so we can 'create' new records!!!
kerplunk said:
Too cryptic for me. Can I have the concise version?
i suspect it is because you are not as well versed in the debate as you may think. i am too dumb to do cryptic well. new scientist said in the article "“Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we’ve released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn’t evidence that the global temperature is increasing.”there was a well documented period around 17 years long where the global temp (i think the notion of a measurable global temp is nonsense,but hey ho) failed to rise,beginning around 1996.where does 2011 fall in a 17 year period beginning in 1996?
Kawasicki said:
LoonyTunes said:
telecat said:
It's pretty much the case that Politicans and the scientists they fund like to limit the data set as it makes their case look better. Widen the Data set and statements like "Well apart from three of the warmest years in the record" do not stand up so well.
Is that the Tory politicians? Fiddling the data? Part of the conspiracy? JRM and other darlings of the right saying nothing about this? Actually complicit in it?The cognitive dissonance going on for you lot must be mind-melting
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
Too cryptic for me. Can I have the concise version?
i suspect it is because you are not as well versed in the debate as you may think. i am too dumb to do cryptic well. new scientist said in the article "“Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we’ve released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn’t evidence that the global temperature is increasing.”there was a well documented period around 17 years long where the global temp (i think the notion of a measurable global temp is nonsense,but hey ho) failed to rise,beginning around 1996.where does 2011 fall in a 17 year period beginning in 1996?
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
Too cryptic for me. Can I have the concise version?
i suspect it is because you are not as well versed in the debate as you may think. i am too dumb to do cryptic well. new scientist said in the article "“Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide, and we’ve released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn’t evidence that the global temperature is increasing.”there was a well documented period around 17 years long where the global temp (i think the notion of a measurable global temp is nonsense,but hey ho) failed to rise,beginning around 1996.where does 2011 fall in a 17 year period beginning in 1996?
Yes there was a pause/slowdown of varying length depending on which dataset and statistical method you use - I notice some selectivity in your description of it.
Still not sure what your point is though. You know that the CRU hacking was kicked off by sceptic auditors FOI request-bombing CRU for the data right?
What has the putative pause got to do with it?
Brilliant. On the same page you've got one person complaining that the entirety of the instrumental record isn't long enough, and that the start of it is arbitrarily chosen to produce records, and another person going on about a flat spot that appears if you start your trendline in 1996.
kerplunk said:
You did cryptic well by accident then.
Yes there was a pause/slowdown of varying length depending on which dataset and statistical method you use - I notice some selectivity in your description of it.
Still not sure what your point is though. You know that the CRU hacking was kicked off by sceptic auditors FOI request-bombing CRU for the data right?
What has the putative pause got to do with it?
Either you're lying, or you can provide evidence that "the CRU hacking was kicked off by sceptic auditors FOI request-bombing CRU for the data"Yes there was a pause/slowdown of varying length depending on which dataset and statistical method you use - I notice some selectivity in your description of it.
Still not sure what your point is though. You know that the CRU hacking was kicked off by sceptic auditors FOI request-bombing CRU for the data right?
What has the putative pause got to do with it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff