Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

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

noggin

"Climategate" Enquiry

Recommended Posts

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.

What's hidden? :)

Just because an internet blog writer can't find something doesn't mean there's a 200 year old conspiracy to hide it - crazy though that may seem to some in tinfoil hat land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.....let's wait until the end of this enquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.....let's wait until the end of this enquiry.

8)8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.....let's wait until the end of this enquiry.

Bother, just lost a long and impassioned post.

The short version: there is simply no way that either side of the argument is going to trust or listen to the other side at this point in time because everyone believes everyone else to be a rampant warmist/rabid denier. We would first have to agree that a particular person is impartial enough to hold the enquiry to begin with!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.....let's wait until the end of this enquiry.

Eye but got a feeling some on here wouldn't accept it if it's bad news from there point of view.

Essan nothing to do with any blogs the leaked emails clearly state data was being hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eye but got a feeling some on here wouldn't accept it if it's bad news from there point of view.

Essan nothing to do with any blogs the leaked emails clearly state data was being hidden.

What? Like when all the deniers' straw men fall by the wayside?? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I missed something?

The head of the ICO clearly believes that the UEA stopped people getting to the data.

But we can of course bury our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. Anyway, i've had a good weekend and really cannot be bothered to waste my time on these climate threads anymore. Its just one circle after another and lots of heads up arses.

Ciao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I missed something?

The head of the ICO clearly believes that the UEA stopped people getting to the data.

It has been reported he said that....

But we can of course bury our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. Anyway, i've had a good weekend and really cannot be bothered to waste my time on these climate threads anymore. Its just one circle after another and lots of heads up arses.

Ciao.

We could wait and see what he actually said - 'arses' or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I missed something?

The head of the ICO clearly believes that the UEA stopped people getting to the data.

What data?

The FOI request to which the alleged comment refers was for something else - and the comment appears based on certain emails as opposed to any actual investigation.

Note the UEA have stated that they consulted with the ICO on all FOI requests. Therefore, if the UEA stopped people getting data it was with the ICO knowledge and possibly on their instructions!

And let's make it very clear: opinions on this issue should have nothing to do with anyone's stance on global warming. Just because you defend the integrity of science doesn't mean you believe the popular media and Al Gore! And you can believe the CRU are a bunch of corrupt thugs and still think the world will warm by 3c in the next 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, in light of other news developments this week, it's always possible the CRU is an Al Qaeda Cell :o :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, in light of other news developments this week, it's always possible the CRU is an Al Qaeda Cell ohmy.giflaugh.gif

rofl.gifrofl.gifrofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the arguing is about :wallbash:

It's a simple test, isn't it? Can someone take a published dataset, using published methods and recreate the HadCru result? Can an interested party do it before 'ClimateGate' and after it?

What does it mean if scientific results are not reproducible? Anyone remember cold fusion?

(FWIW I think the HadCru result is good, and that is backed up by satellite data - I just think they went about it in the wrong way)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pennsylvania State University carrying out an investigation into Dr. Michael Mann's behaviour. As it appears that they have no query about his findings, then I don't suppose the outcome, whatever it may be, will have much of an effect on anything.

A bit pointless really.....I don't know why I bothered posting it! Although the report details some very interesting academic/ethical issues which give an interesting insight into the extremely high ethical standards required in Academia.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/psu10-feb3-findings_mann_inquiry.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to believe it used to be so pious and sanctimonious, now it's rats in a sack.

You're trying to destroy a science by attacking scientists rather that attack the science itself. You might also try to change General Relativity by saying you don't like Einstein...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, I always thought the idea was to send others off on a wild goose chase? However, for reasons best left to them, deniers (not sceptics!) not only create the wild geese, they then proceed to chase them hither and thither; and - hoot with joy when they find them...Amazing stuff! I guess it's the same with all the red herrings too?

Fffffff...foul!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're trying to destroy a science by attacking scientists rather that attack the science itself. You might also try to change General Relativity by saying you don't like Einstein...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People complain about the cost of 'science' and yet the same folk seem to be hell bent on stopping the scientist working in favour of them compiling data sets for every T,D and H who wants to attack their research???? Can't folk just wait for the papers and follow the biblio at the end to gain their info??

The folk who do not see that there are organisations hell bent on filibustering any climate science ,so as to enable B.A.U. to continue for their individual concerns (murdering humanity being uppermost) whilst the science is 'undecided', need to take a severe reality check.

Though I know I'll invoke Godwin there were many Germans who felt nothing but admiration for that man and his ravings. Many of the skeptic blogs seem to endeavour to use the same powers of people manipulation, that sealed the European Jews fate in 37' , to engender mass dissatisfaction with climate scientists and the work they perform.

Very sad ,very sad indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're trying to destroy a science by attacking scientists rather that attack the science itself. You might also try to change General Relativity by saying you don't like Einstein...

And, I always thought the idea was to send others off on a wild goose chase? However, for reasons best left to them, deniers (not sceptics!) not only create the wild geese, they then proceed to chase them hither and thither; and - hoot with joy when they find them...Amazing stuff! I guess it's the same with all the red herrings too?

Fffffff...foul!! :D:rofl:

If you don't like a law of the land, you should lobby for the law to be changed. In this case the FOI, has been used by some to request climate change data, I didn't read the section where scientists were excluded from it's regulations?

You're trying to destroy the act, by attacking sceptics/deniers, rather than attack the law itself.

How many more exceptions would you like to make. Scientists don't have to obey the speed limit, because they are so short on time to save the world?

It's quite amazing that people are actually condoning the withholding of information that is covered under the act. :D

Aaaaacessory to a Criiimmme :acute::rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're trying to destroy a science by attacking scientists rather that attack the science itself.

I am doing my best to follow this complicated affair. However, it seems to me that certain information would make it easier for sceptics to provide a robust challenge to the science, but it is that information which has been with-held. :D

Really and truly, if it is all so important to mankind, then why won't they just release it as requested?

I am trying to be fair here, but am finding it difficult not to be suspicious of all the secrecy and request refusals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am doing my best to follow this complicated affair. However, it seems to me that certain information would make it easier for sceptics to provide a robust challenge to the science, but it is that information which has been with-held. :D

Really and truly, if it is all so important to mankind, then why won't they just release it as requested?

I am trying to be fair here, but am finding it difficult not to be suspicious of all the secrecy and request refusals.

I try to be fair by assuming innocence until guilt is proven.

As to the an alleged lack of openness we've been into all that previously.. Anyone trying to research climate faced with the kind of vexatious nonsense like the document from Mr Holland has surely had the patience tested beyond that of a saint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/260c9290-10d7-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Here, from The Times, is the transcript of an interview with Dr. Pachauri. I admit that I haven't read beyond the first few sentences, but it looks like it will be interesting reading.

I'm off to read it now and may have something to say afterwards. Or I might not....it depends on what he said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like a law of the land, you should lobby for the law to be changed. In this case the FOI, has been used by some to request climate change data, I didn't read the section where scientists were excluded from it's regulations?

You're assuming guilt...

You're trying to destroy the act, by attacking sceptics/deniers, rather than attack the law itself.

How many more exceptions would you like to make. Scientists don't have to obey the speed limit, because they are so short on time to save the world?

It's quite amazing that people are actually condoning the withholding of information that is covered under the act. :rofl:

Aaaaacessory to a Criiimmme :D:acute:

Again, you are assuming guilt. Don't bang on about the law if you think you don't need it but can simply convict without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming guilt...

Again, you are assuming guilt. Don't bang on about the law if you think you don't need it but can simply convict without it.

And round and round we go, your assuming the only motive of the FOI requests was to attack the scientists... so they can't be innocent until proven guilty of that accusation? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And round and round we go, your assuming the only motive of the FOI requests was to attack the scientists... so they can't be innocent until proven guilty of that accusation? :wallbash:

Erm, yes to an extent I am. Maybe I've read too many article in places like WUWT attacking named scientists (not science, named scientists, ad homming them) and that colours my view of the motives of some.... So, yes, I am prepared to admit that I am assuming motives - though I'm not accusing any one of breaking a law, I'm just going by my experience. But, otoh, maybe Mr Holland's doc (link above) is entirely succinct, to the point, readable and not unreasonably time consuming :lol:

Will you admit people are not guilty of breaking a law because newspapers, blogs or posters here say they are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, and we've been through this lots of times now, but work is quiet, that you will find the newspapers (unless you read the gutter trash) generally report the news, not make the news.

The Head of the ICO said the UEA witheld information requested under the FOI therefore by definition they broke the law. We don't need to wait until someone else says so.

It's a bit like 100 people seeing someone killing his wife, he is guilty immediately and not after his trial.

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...