Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

"Climategate" Enquiry

Recommended Posts

The issue of the raw data comes very much under FOI law and is very cleary exempt.

Interesting that person was making multiple FOI requests and is making multiple complaints.

As a Trustee of a charity I've encountered people like this many times before. Some people will attempt to have a charity closed because their accounts show 2567 nails were used whereas this person has determined only 2563 were used - thus proving fraud. You may wonder why I have little time for such persons ......

My god!!! Have you read that doc? :D What a load of pedantic, vexatious, time wasting twaddle. He's definitely a Mr Triplicate. I think whatever deity you like I don't have to deal with such people - people like him need telling where to shove off to rather than pandered to. To think it's people lik ehim both wasting the CRU and UEA's time and part of the cause of a costly enquiry :D .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, my bad, missed the BBC report yesterday and the various others in newspapers. So, it looks like the ICO think there was a breach. Of ocurse, what Dr Jones/the CRU have to say in their defence doesn't seem to matter...

I expect the internet clamour for some head(s) to roll will grow. But, until the dreadful day arrives and Dr Jones is sacked I refuse to believe the witch hunt has been a success :smiliz19: but, I do have to admit some of the clamour in parts of the net is getting chillingly close to medieval...

You might be in luck Dev, it takes more than an internet campaign to sack a tenured professor!

On a more general note I'd like to point out that the need to use a FOI request to get information from an academic department seems a bit excessive and perhaps telling. Generally once the project is rolled up and published then a simple email to the corresponding author is enough to get requested information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen very good people, good friends of mine, resign from the MBA because of obsessive people like this :yahoo: Sadly, like the Terminator, they will not ever stop - because they know they are right and if everyone else on the planet disagrees it simply means everyone else on the planet is in on the conspiracy .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be in luck Dev, it takes more than an internet campaign to sack a tenured professor!

We better hope so. The idea that scientists could be forced from their job by the internet inquisition should make all of us shudder - you included.

On a more general note I'd like to point out that the need to use a FOI request to get information from an academic department seems a bit excessive and perhaps telling. Generally once the project is rolled up and published then a simple email to the corresponding author is enough to get requested information.

Read that word doc and tell me, with a straight face, that it's not load of pedantic, vexatious, time wasting twaddle. Essan is absolutely right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More excellent publicity:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

Someone here is lying, whom hardly matters, just another instance of "climate change" deceit.

Nope, a newspaper is making allegations.

I was unwise enough to believe what the Times said about this yesterday, I wont make that mistake twice. Some of us expect a better level of evidence than that of a witch hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, a newspaper is making allegations.

I was unwise enough to believe what the Times said about this yesterday, I wont make that mistake twice. Some of us expect a better level of evidence than that of a witch hunt.

Allegations, witch hunt, whatever.

The reaction of the people who choose to comment is indicative that the AGW campaign is rapidly losing momentum.

At one time hardly anyone would have dared to question the theory because the alarmist methods were initially successful.

The sort of thing Alistair Campbell would have been proud of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously been following this in the papers, it's pretty inescapeable at the minute, but I do have an observation/query.

Now, isn't it right that when someone comes up with a scientific theory, they usually publish, with their hypothesis/theory, all the data and methods that they have used to come up with their conclusions. Then other scientists go off and examine the data and repeat the experiments/analysis and then agree or disagree with the original theory. Thus a theory is proven or disproven. A second scientist might say, "Oh I say old chap, you've actually made a mistake in your statiostical results analysis here and here and so the result is your experiment/method does not in fact support your theory of xyz." Or he might say that actually, yes, this does appear to prove xyz and he is going to devide another experiment to back it up as further evidence.

So that's how it has worked for decades, correct me if I'm wrong (or over-simplifying).

Okay, so that established, how can it be said that AGW is proven, done and dusted, when the data and methods haven't been published and results reproduced independently by other scientists? They have said, "let them go and get their own data", but this is against scientific method, because to see what might have gone wrong in the analysis you need to see the original information and start from exactly the same place as the original theorist.

If this is right, then in order for AGW to become a proven theory, the original data and methods need to be published and re-analysed by other scientists, right down to the basic raw data and the methods used to adjust it preparatory to statistical analysis.

And if that had been done in the first place there would never have been any need for the FOI requests.

Obviously if there is some data used that has come from private establishements that do not want it passed on, then that would have to be with-held, or permission asked from the original owners of the data. However, as I understand it 95% of the data could (and therefore should) have been made available for peer-review, and 95% is quite enough for a statistical agreement.

I don't understand why they have been "hiding" all of this information, because science is about sharing information and having others look at it all and go, "Oooh, I say, you're on to something there." Or not. But why be afraid of the not? Wouldn't it be a huge relief if it actually turned out that you'd made a huge mistake and actually mann wasn't causing massive global warming that was going to destroy the planet? Or is scientific career over if you make one mistake in one paper?

Still, if they have broken the law it seems daft that they can't be prosecuted. This must be the only law that is only effective for 6 months. A bit of stalling and you're scot-free. Must be to protect the government then.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...how can it be said that AGW is proven, done and dusted, when the data and methods haven't been published and results reproduced independently by other scientists?

AGW encompasses many different scientific theories and observations - though more commonly it refers simple to carbon-emission derived global warming and the 'greenhouse effect' - a theory began with Fourrier in 1820 and has been much studied, improved upon and rigorously tested ever since. Some dispute it, but then, some dispute evolution and plate tectonics and say the world was created in 4004BC or is expanding .....

The data compiled by CRU is observation - which some use to support the idea that AGW is occurring, although others use to to show, for example, that the Earth has warmed due to changes in solar activity. The data itself does not prove the cause of any warming, only that warming has occurred.

The raw data used by the CRU was supplied by many different national meteorological institutions and a bona fide scientist may request the same data from those institutions, though obviously any obligation to provide it is subject to their own national laws etc. FOI requests to obtain this data from the CRU failed because such data - obtainable elsewhere and held under licence by the CRU - it is excluded from the Act. Note that the UEA say that they consulted the ICO on this matter, at the time the FOI requests were made.

The ICO has intimated - though apparently only to newspapers and thus the nature of their statement is in doubt - that in a completely separate case, persons at the CRU acted unlawfully in refusing to provide some completelt different information requested under the FOIA. However, the only apparent 'evidence' for this accusation is the content of recently leaked emails - and we cannot know whether the comments made in these emails were acted upon or not. In any case, once again, the UEA state that they consulted with the ICO at the time and thus the accusation of misconduct appears questionable. However more info may come to light to clarify this matter in due course. That there is a 6 month statute of limitation on complaints is neither here nor there - a matter you may wish to take up with you MP as with any of the thousands of other laws which some argue ought be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allegations, witch hunt, whatever.

The reaction of the people who choose to comment is indicative that the AGW campaign is rapidly losing momentum.

At one time hardly anyone would have dared to question the theory because the alarmist methods were initially successful.

The sort of thing Alistair Campbell would have been proud of.

Ahh, so if scientists are defended from witch hunters they're guilty, and, presumably, scientsts are obviously guilty if no one sees fit to defend them :nonono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that's bad Peter, you read this (have a large drink beforehand!)

http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges/comment-page-1#comment-2114

I'm just surprised he missed out the bit about Jones being a shape shifting reptilian from Nibiru :lol:

Still, it's a great way to make all sceptics look like tin foil wearing loonies. Maybe that's the point? :(

Ahh, so if scientists are defended from witch hunters they're guilty, and, presumably, scientsts are obviously guilty if no one sees fit to defend them :nonono:

If they defend themselves they are guilty. If they do not defend themselves it proves they are guilty. Anyone else who defends them is obviously also guilty or else why would they have defended them? You know how witchfinding works :nonono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, so if scientists are defended from witch hunters they're guilty, and, presumably, scientsts are obviously guilty if no one sees fit to defend them wallbash.gif

You raised the prospect of a witch hunt, not me, so make what you like of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of desperation and panic from the pro warmers I see. Wait until the enquiry finishes. In the meantime chill out. If your guys are as good and clean as you think you haven't a problem do you. You then can gloat as much as you like.

Anyway I didn't think the CPS is investigating the possible climate fraud just who nicked the emails which would be funny if it turned out to be pure carelessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGW encompasses many different scientific theories and observations - though more commonly it refers simple to carbon-emission derived global warming and the 'greenhouse effect' - a theory began with Fourrier in 1820 and has been much studied, improved upon and rigorously tested ever since. Some dispute it, but then, some dispute evolution and plate tectonics and say the world was created in 4004BC or is expanding .....

The data compiled by CRU is observation - which some use to support the idea that AGW is occurring, although others use to to show, for example, that the Earth has warmed due to changes in solar activity. The data itself does not prove the cause of any warming, only that warming has occurred.

The raw data used by the CRU was supplied by many different national meteorological institutions and a bona fide scientist may request the same data from those institutions, though obviously any obligation to provide it is subject to their own national laws etc. FOI requests to obtain this data from the CRU failed because such data - obtainable elsewhere and held under licence by the CRU - it is excluded from the Act. Note that the UEA say that they consulted the ICO on this matter, at the time the FOI requests were made.

The ICO has intimated - though apparently only to newspapers and thus the nature of their statement is in doubt - that in a completely separate case, persons at the CRU acted unlawfully in refusing to provide some completelt different information requested under the FOIA. However, the only apparent 'evidence' for this accusation is the content of recently leaked emails - and we cannot know whether the comments made in these emails were acted upon or not. In any case, once again, the UEA state that they consulted with the ICO at the time and thus the accusation of misconduct appears questionable. However more info may come to light to clarify this matter in due course. That there is a 6 month statute of limitation on complaints is neither here nor there - a matter you may wish to take up with you MP as with any of the thousands of other laws which some argue ought be changed.

Try as I might I can't find a way of responding to this that doesn't make me sound like a flat-earth conspiracy-theory uber denialist. Even though I am merely moderately sceptical about the causes of the warming, not even of the warming itself. Amazingwhistling.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that's bad Peter, you read this (have a large drink beforehand!)

http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges/comment-page-1#comment-2114

I'm just surprised he missed out the bit about Jones being a shape shifting reptilian from Nibiru :lol:

Still, it's a great way to make all sceptics look like tin foil wearing loonies. Maybe that's the point? :(

A Denial Depot feel to it. And the about us bit is pure entertainment "The goal of Climategate.com is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, and other information and news to help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal." It's simple init, if you're not a total sceptic, convinced there is a massive global scam going on, you're a socialist :whistling: . But, why people should be able to go around saying lies about people beats me, nothing intelligent or sensible to say I guess - but it clearly keeps to mob happy...

If they defend themselves they are guilty. If they do not defend themselves it proves they are guilty. Anyone else who defends them is obviously also guilty or else why would they have defended them? You know how witchfinding works :hi:

Ahh, but we're panicing aren't we :hi:

You raised the prospect of a witch hunt, not me, so make what you like of it.

What word would you use for ignorant (and I use the words advisedly in it's proper meaning) people finding other people guilty of serious thought crimes without those people undergoing a trial? A vicar's tea party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Denial Depot feel to it. And the about us bit is pure entertainment "The goal of Climategate.com is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, and other information and news to help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal." It's simple init, if you're not a total sceptic, convinced there is a massive global scam going on, you're a socialist wallbash.gif . But, why people should be able to go around saying lies about people beats me, nothing intelligent or sensible to say I guess - but it clearly keeps to mob happy...

Ahh, but we're panicing aren't we rofl.gif

What word would you use for ignorant (and I use the words advisedly in it's proper meaning) people finding other people guilty of serious thought crimes without those people undergoing a trial? A vicar's tea party?

I don't have a word for it because I don't consider "thought crimes" an offence anyone can be guilty of, as there's no victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a word for it because I don't consider "thought crimes" an offence anyone can be guilty of, as there's no victim.

Oh yes there is the tax payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes there is the tax payer.

Ah, I'd almost forgotten our much loved spend-crazed government for a moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try as I might I can't find a way of responding to this that doesn't make me sound like a flat-earth conspiracy-theory uber denialist. Even though I am merely moderately sceptical about the causes of the warming, not even of the warming itself. Amazingwhistling.gif

Well if it helps, I'm sceptical about claims made by the IPCC etal and think that whilst humans are affecting climate, to our detriment, CO2 is well down on the list of priorities.

However, even if I do not agree with it, I will defend science to the hilt. Because too many people are attacking science and the scientists because they don't want to beleive what they are saying, rather than for any scientific reason. If they have a genuine (scientific) argument it's a different matter. But those who refute carbon emission derived global warming have not as yet provided any scientific reason what it cannot happen. The dispute is simply about how much effect it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it helps, I'm sceptical about claims made by the IPCC etal and think that whilst humans are affecting climate, to our detriment, CO2 is well down on the list of priorities.

However, even if I do not agree with it, I will defend science to the hilt. Because too many people are attacking science and the scientists because they don't want to beleive what they are saying, rather than for any scientific reason. If they have a genuine (scientific) argument it's a different matter. But those who refute carbon emission derived global warming have not as yet provided any scientific reason what it cannot happen. The dispute is simply about how much effect it has.

If you're defending science shouldn't science be open and also too independent review rather than hiding it away???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're defending science shouldn't science be open and also too independent review rather than hiding it away???

Of course it should and is - nice try to strawman us.

What it shouldn't be open to is people seemingly doing such a thing when really they're out to get the scientists not the science or open to obsessives of the 2543* nails variety who simply wont accept the truth. Go read that unrelentingly tedious and vexatious screed from Mr Holland a few pages back if you don't believe me.

My mistake 2563...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it should and is - nice try to strawman us.

What it shouldn't be open to is people seemingly doing such a thing when really they're out to get the scientists not the science or open to obsessives of the 2543* nails variety who simply wont accept the truth. Go read that unrelentingly tedious and vexatious screed from Mr Holland a few pages back if you don't believe me.

My mistake 2563...

Complete twaddle. If the science is sound it will stand up regardless. Unless ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're defending science shouldn't science be open and also too independent review rather than hiding it away???

It is. If you ask.

Don't believe all the witch hunters tell you :cold:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is. If you ask.

Don't believe all the witch hunters tell you :cold:

Don't be so scared of the possible truth. Why hide the data. You hide things when you know when they won't stand up too scrutiny. If they were open in the first place this problem wouldn't be here would it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete twaddle. If the science is sound it will stand up regardless. Unless ......

Unless people can make a witch of it...

Don't be so scared of the possible truth. Why hide the data. You hide things when you know when they won't stand up too scrutiny. If they were open in the first place this problem wouldn't be here would it.

No one is hiding any data you're simply take an allegation and accept it as the truth - what kind of scrutiny is that! But, again, if people can be convinced that is what is happening by people mistakenly convinced that it is happening it becomes a nice self fulfilling circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...