Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
clyffepypard said:
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?
dickymint said:
clyffepypard said:
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?
This might help:
"In the two years after current laws came into effect at the start of 2005, no requests for information were logged with the IPCM, though we know from the emails that there were such requests. We know from the IPCM log that CRU received four requests in 2007, two in 2008, and one in the first half of 2009 (four were fully granted and three rejected).
Then came the storm. Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”). The Review says “such orchestrated campaigns [have] literally overwhelming impacts on small research units.”
As Phil Jones has admitted, CRU did the wrong thing with regard to Freedom of Information requests. However, they clearly perceived that the requests were not being made in good faith. The Review apparently made no attempt to investigate the motivations of the requesters.
But all this must be considered in the context of the Review's general findings (summarised here): although the scientists failed to display the proper degree of openness, their rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers. Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science community.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Freedom-of-Inform...
LoonyTunes said:
Why would plod be interested in FoI requests???
This might help:
"In the two years after current laws came into effect at the start of 2005, no requests for information were logged with the IPCM, though we know from the emails that there were such requests. We know from the IPCM log that CRU received four requests in 2007, two in 2008, and one in the first half of 2009 (four were fully granted and three rejected).
Then came the storm. Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”). The Review says “such orchestrated campaigns [have] literally overwhelming impacts on small research units.”
As Phil Jones has admitted, CRU did the wrong thing with regard to Freedom of Information requests. However, they clearly perceived that the requests were not being made in good faith. The Review apparently made no attempt to investigate the motivations of the requesters.
But all this must be considered in the context of the Review's general findings (summarised here): although the scientists failed to display the proper degree of openness, their rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers. Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science community.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Freedom-of-Inform...
you need to stay away from sks. even wuwt place a caveat around their link to the place due the lack of integrity of those running the site. it wasn't up to phil jones to perceive the motivations behind foi requests. just comply with those legally made. i do agree a large amount of them in a small period of time would be overwhelming,but it was up to the organisation receiving them to put in place a procedure for dealing with them. if the data had all been open source, as i believe every single bit of publicly funded research outside matters of national security should be, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.This might help:
"In the two years after current laws came into effect at the start of 2005, no requests for information were logged with the IPCM, though we know from the emails that there were such requests. We know from the IPCM log that CRU received four requests in 2007, two in 2008, and one in the first half of 2009 (four were fully granted and three rejected).
Then came the storm. Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”). The Review says “such orchestrated campaigns [have] literally overwhelming impacts on small research units.”
As Phil Jones has admitted, CRU did the wrong thing with regard to Freedom of Information requests. However, they clearly perceived that the requests were not being made in good faith. The Review apparently made no attempt to investigate the motivations of the requesters.
But all this must be considered in the context of the Review's general findings (summarised here): although the scientists failed to display the proper degree of openness, their rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers. Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science community.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Freedom-of-Inform...
well unless jones had a problem with someone finding something wrong with his data
hairykrishna said:
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.
is there a conflict there somewhere i am missing ? btw you won't find me arguing the significance of any short term trends. my point was there were claims made regarding warming at a time when there wasn't any according to those gathering the data. imo, none of the data sets are fit for purpose, that includes the satellites. they may well be useful for many things,attributing warming to the anthropogenic component of atmospheric co2 is not one of them. you will tell me the effects of adding co2 to the atmosphere are well known. again i won't disagree. where i do disagree is that the atmospheric earth response is not well known on the timescales we are looking at.there are multiple naturally occurring phenomena operating at instant to thousands of years and longer. when climate science has them all dialed in they can then start making claims around certainty.
ps, apologies to long q for going off topic again.
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
clyffepypard said:
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?
This might help:
"In the two years after current laws came into effect at the start of 2005, no requests for information were logged with the IPCM, though we know from the emails that there were such requests. We know from the IPCM log that CRU received four requests in 2007, two in 2008, and one in the first half of 2009 (four were fully granted and three rejected).
Then came the storm. Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”). The Review says “such orchestrated campaigns [have] literally overwhelming impacts on small research units.”
As Phil Jones has admitted, CRU did the wrong thing with regard to Freedom of Information requests. However, they clearly perceived that the requests were not being made in good faith. The Review apparently made no attempt to investigate the motivations of the requesters.
But all this must be considered in the context of the Review's general findings (summarised here): although the scientists failed to display the proper degree of openness, their rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers. Despite being heralded as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, Climategate has not even invalidated CRU's results, let alone the conclusions of the climate science community.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Freedom-of-Inform...
clyffepypard said:
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?
wc98 said:
hairykrishna said:
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.
my point was there were claims made regarding warming at a time when there wasn't any according to those gathering the data. kerplunk said:
What, you think the intense FOI acitivity being directed at CRU before someone calling themself 'FOIA' hacked the CRU servers and then posted links to the emails on sceptic auditor sites like Climateaudit and The Air Vent wasn't related or inspired by that FOI activity. Ok.
my understanding is it was a leak, not a hack ? https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/15/...kerplunk said:
That was your point? They're talking about a record that shows warming over the period of the dataset. You're focussing on a small portion of it that doesn't show warming and trying to suggest something but it's still not clear what. I give up - clearly my understanding of the issues isn't up to it.
wtf ? have you looked at any historical data set ? there are many periods of warming and cooling. the only relevance of of any period was the one in question when the claim was made. can you remember the climate communicators of the time highlighting the lack of warming, or was it something not discussed in public until they had no choice ?wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
What, you think the intense FOI acitivity being directed at CRU before someone calling themself 'FOIA' hacked the CRU servers and then posted links to the emails on sceptic auditor sites like Climateaudit and The Air Vent wasn't related or inspired by that FOI activity. Ok.
my understanding is it was a leak, not a hack ? https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/15/...I'm in good company. The day after 'FOIA' (whoever he/she is) posted links to the tranche of emails on his website, Jeff ID at the Air Vent saw the obvious connection:
"They were potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests."
kerplunk said:
clyffepypard said:
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?
Allegedly 60 requests? Is that intense? Especially given the interest in the data based on all the attention the Mann hockeystick and a few other seemingly coordinated papers has generated in the previous year or two.Why would the people at CRU not be delighted that they were receiving worldwide publicity for their work?
Given the CRU's previous reluctance to share anything, other than within a small group of like minded people, it's hardly surprising that people interested in looking at the veracity of the claims of various academic reports felt a need to understand the base data and how it they had been derived. All other normal academic approaches seemed to have failed to gain any sort of acceptable response. The discovery of the recently introduced FOI legislation was pretty much the last chance. FOI had been implemented by Government for a reason and this situation was the sort of reason for which it had been implemented.
It was probably, as I recall from the discussions back then, no more that people asking for information that should have been in the public domain already according to normal scientific research principles and openness given the public funding from which CRU existed.
In other words it was time for them to complete the job. Made much harder no doubt because they, by their own admission, had "lost" the original data. Clumsy. Maybe incompetent given its apparent importance.
Unless, of course, the were other influences - perhaps from the source of the funds than ran the department? - to "disappear" the data leaving Phil Jones in a very awkward position well beyond his apparently petulant "why should I share so much work with you when you will only want to try to pull it apart" (or similarly worded) comment some time before the FOI requests.
Perhaps there were political pressures even back then.
Why would they need several different review committees in order to claim exoneration?
Why would the people undertaking the reviews, as political appointees, not be entirely independent?
10 or so years on and it the answers to those questions don't much matter.
Not enough questions were raised - at least of a sort that could or would engage the public at large (which would be incredibly difficult anyway) - and the political manoeuvring has moved on to a point where CRU and its crew are no longer the go-to sources for any CC related information via official sources in the popular media.
Any problem that might have become a very serious issue was neatly sidestepped, science was, to some extent, both publically vindicated and subsequently sidelined for "official" leading the line replies to questions as parliamentary committees and their PR advisors assumed control.
Job done. Sir Humphrey would be proud of the result.
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
That was your point? They're talking about a record that shows warming over the period of the dataset. You're focussing on a small portion of it that doesn't show warming and trying to suggest something but it's still not clear what. I give up - clearly my understanding of the issues isn't up to it.
wtf ? have you looked at any historical data set ? there are many periods of warming and cooling. the only relevance of of any period was the one in question when the claim was made. Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 21st August 15:03
From one of the key points made by the HoC Cttee reviewing UEA CRU behaviour, surely no FoI requests (or very few) would have been needed if those involved had followed standard scientific procedure as aligned with principles of openness in the results of use of public money by making all related data/algorithms/methodology/comms available as standard. Adopting this approach might have prevented the egregious examples of unworthy behaviours made so visible by the Climategate affair. Clearly there may well have been unpalatable consequences for UEA CRU and AGW from full and timely access to data/algorithms/methodology/comms by other scientsts and indeed other interested parties regardless of their academic background.
The Pause is notable for the fiasco involving sundry articles with The Team trying to explain it away with hindsight (the sub-aqua dog ate my gobal warming) then all of a sudden heat-contaminated ship engine intake sea surface temperature values replaced scientific buoy sea surface temperatures and Hey Presclot! "Nothing to see here - what pause it never existed" just in time for Obama and other politicos to go to Paris. A pause of over 15 years was previously said to be fatal to the models and their agw, so at 16 years and counting something had to be done retrospectively. And it was (Karl et al). Hilarious!
The Pause is notable for the fiasco involving sundry articles with The Team trying to explain it away with hindsight (the sub-aqua dog ate my gobal warming) then all of a sudden heat-contaminated ship engine intake sea surface temperature values replaced scientific buoy sea surface temperatures and Hey Presclot! "Nothing to see here - what pause it never existed" just in time for Obama and other politicos to go to Paris. A pause of over 15 years was previously said to be fatal to the models and their agw, so at 16 years and counting something had to be done retrospectively. And it was (Karl et al). Hilarious!
Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-...
LoonyTunes said:
Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?
In climate politics news we have...an update on a fashionable form of activism using children as litigious climate pawns. A judge in Washington State has dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed against the state by a group of children. King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott ruled in favour of the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Meanwhile on this side of the pond, Michael Gove looks set to ban the sale of wet logs.
LoonyTunes said:
Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-...
"No
doubt many of you are tired of seeing this post and yet I persist. Just explain
per traditional scientific etiquette and dialogue why my methods and
conclusions are wrong and I will have to stop until corrections are made.
Simple and in your hands.If it had not been for “deniers” challenging the
“consensus” doctors and surgeons would still be going from patient to patient
with infectious hands and clothing.Here’s an excellent
example of fake news.
“97% of scientists (implying ALL!!! scientists) believe in man-caused climate
change.”
What the MSM meant to say is 97% of all CLIMATE scientists (similar to
aroma-therapists and horse whisperers) actively researching and publishing in
that field (At this point insert getting paid.) consider the evidence
compelling - all 82 of them – cherry picked out of the 10,500 surveys that were
sent out. (Doran and Zimmerman)Demonizing,
marginalizing, silencing and censoring the skeptics and critics (Union of
Concerned “Scientists” & Disqus & FB & USA Today & MSN &
WUWT) is the real anti-science. Science without doubt, science without
uncertainty, becomes religion.Believing
that 0.04% of the atmospheric gases magically influences weather and dominates
the climate takes a real sci fi flight of fantasy (or article of faith).The
upwelling/down welling/"back” radiation of greenhouse theory is comic book
science, Saturday morning cartoon science, cinematic shape-shifting, mutant
superhero science defying six of the three most fundamental laws of thermodynamics
and physics.http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/agw-myth-of-back-radiation.htmlBelieving
in the upwelling/downwelling”/back” radiation GHG/GHE theory is like believing
in the X-men, but without the kewl movies. Not surprising since they share a
common fan base.5,800!!!!
(plus 4,000!! since 6/9) views collected on the following three papers and
NOBODY has disputed my methods or conclusions. (Well, I got a lecture on water
vapor which sort of misses the CO2 point.)Step
right up, be the first, take ‘em apart.Bring
science, I did.http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse---We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33Chttp://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
Likethumb_up"
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
clyffepypard said:
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?
Allegedly 60 requests? Is that intense?
Readers can see the organised FOI campaign unfolding here btw:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-da...
Anyway, I wonder if anyone can answer this now - are the Tories (who've been in Government for 8 years I'm told) including JRM, Boris et all involved in this AGW conspiracy to raise taxes for for a cause they don't believe in? Is the whole Tory party lying to us?
Or, do they in fact believe in AGW and are just trying to act for the betterment of us in raising taxes and so are not involved in any conspiracy with anyone?
Thanks
Or, do they in fact believe in AGW and are just trying to act for the betterment of us in raising taxes and so are not involved in any conspiracy with anyone?
Thanks
LoonyTunes said:
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
And have you an answer to my question?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff