FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Great link
Posted on 12/02/2009 11:54:04 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
Climategate ping.
I’d say “dog catcher” would carry more moral weight than “climate scientist” these days. At least dog catchers perform a needful community service.
And no, I did not come up with that term, though I saw it here, and I think we should all use it to describe people who believe in the religion of man-made global warming.
Global Warming Climagate, Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15471.html
Here is another people might want to read.
He said, "I was too ashamed to admit that he had a PhD and was a Climate Scientist!"
WTF is this supposed to mean exactly? Consistency, as in "hide the decline"?
So, the CRU does not have a list of the subset of stations they relied on for HadCRUT3, nor does it have the original data for those specific stations, nor does it have the “corrected” data for those stations, nor does it have the correction factor numbers used to massage the original data.
With all of this, Global Warming nuts say the original data is all still there from the original sources.
That comment may be true, but it means no one can check the work or the numbers our of CRU in any way.
“Trust us.”
Your welcome :)
Unfortunately, the EPA is a loose cannon that pretty much does whatever it wants.
It will kowtow to Obama, because he’s on the same page. But it constantly undermined Bush.
I’d say that if we EVER get a President and congress that decide to cut public spending, then the EPA and the Department of Education are the places to start. Just eliminate them completely. Localities and states can run the schools, and states can regulate environmental issues. Since there is at least some competition among the states, that should keep them at least slightly honest.
We need to cut TRILLIONS in government waste at this point, if the private sector and the economy are ever going to recover.
So if you have 4 sets of data that “all show the same thing,” and one of them is caught falsifying data— the conclusion is that it doesn’t matter because they all show the same thing? Here’s an alternative explanation: they all used a similar methodology, but 3 of them haven’t been caught yet.....
hh
Since the comments in the software were all to the effect of reducing past temperatures and increasing recent ones,
we get a pretty good idea what they mean by “consistency”.
What CRU does have, to be clear, is a combined dataset after all adjustments were made to whatever stations they hand picked. And this has even been something they’ve refused to provide under the legal requests made of it over the past several years. And on top of that, their emails show they were considering deleting THIS data in some form, too.
The Global Warming crowd is strange, but then, you knew that when you saw Al Gore get a Nobel Prize.
“Climate scientists are refuting claims that raw data used in critical climate change reports has been destroyed...”
Great! Make it all public.
If the data is there release it and give a complete explanation of your methodology so other scientists can validate or disprove what you have done. That is true science. However it is obvious from the e-mails that the data was deliberately manipulated to render a foregone conclusion even when analysis showed that conclusion to be wrong. This is grasping at straws.
Yep, a consistent trend line. Some honest climate scientists were screaming about the fact that their dataset seemed to obliterate the well-known Medieval Warm Period, but most just ignored that little fact like it was no big problem.
The turn over the date. If there is nothing to hide, why the stonewalling on perfectly reasonable FOIA requests for the data?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
