Climate Change Politics

yes. What is there? slideshow of the emails passing by as he talks. not just that email.

How about we examine two items that you hold to be an email that is being taken out of context and doesn't mean what it seems to say ? You pick. How can I be more extending of opportunity to you ?

No, there are two others, I suppose.

One of them is Phil Jones' threat to redefine peer review in order to keep something out - clearly something that would be beyond his means to do really.

Given we don't know what 'it' is how can a conclusion be drawn on what Phil Jones was trying to do - if he was trying to do something other than make a flippant comment to a colleague.

Rex also claims the "data used to build climate models has been lost".

No it hasn't. The data used to construct climate models comes from numerous sources, the UEA doesn't have a monopoly on them, even if it was 'destroying' data (a deleted e-mail does not count as destroying datas unless it was only document that contained such data - which sounds unlikely to me).

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals - stored on paper and magnetic tape - were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

'Something' was deleted. What was it? Don't know. Was it important data about climate change available nowhere else? Don't know - but that's the conclusion Rex and co want to jump to and diseminate to their veiwers.

The third piece of evidence is another e-mail threatening deletion of an e-mail - again, no context, no knowledge of what the deleted e-mail is supposed to be about.

If this is what can be cherry picked from over a decade of e-mails to demonstrate fraud I don't like to think what sort of charge could be brought against me for things I've said in e-mails in the last ten years.

I refer you back to the vids - seeing as I don't see that you've actually provided a constructive criticism of them.

Since they did not mention dose, your argument fails.

that took me a minute to see what you had done, by inserting "dose". very nice trick, there, Paul. I'm impressed by the maneuverability you display.

They DO mention dose, actually. They may not use that word, but the concentrations of exposure are the dependent variable in the table on fishdoc and that quite literally is a statement of dose. But I'd be happy to substitute the word concentration for dose if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Dose simply means the amount that the subject is exposed to. And potency, in toxicologic terms, is quite simply the AMOUNT required to produce a given effect. Hydromorphone is more POTENT than morphine because the same effect is achieved with fewer milligrams.

so that your claim is now debunked.

Are you unaware that they threw out the temp data ? wow. no wonder you have no clue.

ridiculous. He specifically tells what it is that he wants deleted.

Some pay for their illicit activities, some get away clean.

You claim that I am not replying fully with evidence.

No it isn't.

If I'd said "it was the only thing held up as evidence" it might have been. Yes.

But I did not say that, I just said it had been held up as evidence.

Which is actually the case.

No 'debunk'.

Both these 'reporters' held up the quote as evidence for their opinion.

As it is, the other stuff held up as evidence is no more damning anyway - unless there's more to it that Rex shows.

But he does not show - he merely remarks on the incomplete story.

So Rex is being no more credible on the issue than the likes of Beck, really.

I'm aware that there is controversy on whether tree ring readings from the last 50 years or so can be trusted as providing accurate measurments, as they diverge so much from thermometer readings.

Are we to trust tree rings or thermometers?

Phil et al are going with the thermometers and discarding the tree ring data.

Is tree ring data from the past to be used to construct climate models?

How exactly atre they paying? Are you back to claiming this is straight up fraud to the tune of billions of dollars? What's the crime here exactly?

To my eyes all you ever seem to do is play some pedantic game. I have yet to see anything you've claimed backed up with much at all.

this is what you said "The" quote.

of course there is, but you don't want to get to it. You only want to present little bites from your Youtube vid.

bunk. nothing he said denies GW.

obviously you have no comprehension of what happened, and that is why I want you to name your emails..so we can see exactly what they refer to.

then why not name 2 emails and we can go deeper ? What's the problem ? You need to keep the responsibility for errors that you might make, on the youtube people ? is that it ?

Sure - the knife was evidence that convicted the killer.

The only evidence?

Not necessarily.

No, I'd like to discuss the vids as a big picture, and am forced to defend tiny (and rather irrelevent) points because you'd rather focus in on a clumsy word here or there than give a decent apercus of your problems with the vids.


Is that an argument I actually made, or something you're just attributing to me willy-nilly.

He is advocating regarding climategate as a telling and significant act of fraud - but his case is weak.


Go back to the potholer vid.

Watch it.

I broadly agree with his assessment.

Maybe - MAYBE - he uses a word clumsily here or there.

Perhaps.

You may think that makes his assessment bunk, but I don't agree.


I don't think they are infalliable.

I just think there's more to be learned from ten minutes of watching them than a day spent arguing with you.

With that - like others seem to have done, I'm going to leave you to the thread unless something interesting comes up. It's not worth the time.

Originally Posted by memester
bunk. that statement is not the only evidence on which he is basing his words, they are just ONE PART of the evidence.

It's not bunk, it's true. Watch the video yourself again if you don't believe me. It's there at 1:45. Are you denying this?

Sure - the knife was evidence that convicted the killer.

The only evidence?

Not necessarily.

Douglass talks about the trouble

American Thinker: A Climatology Conspiracy?

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.I hope that means being both)

The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it.
Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday. But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.
GLOBE may be too obscure to merit its own Wikipedia entry, but that belies its wealth and influence. It funds meetings for parliamentarians worldwide with an interest in climate change, and prior to the Copenhagen Summit GLOBE issued guidelines (pdf) for legislators. Little expense is spared: in one year alone, one peer - Lord Michael Jay of Ewelme - enjoyed seven club class flights and hotel accommodation, at GLOBE's expense. There's no greater love a Parliamentarian can give to the global warming cause. And in return, Globe lists Oxburgh as one of 23 key legislators.

Little expense is spared: in one year alone, one peer - Lord Michael Jay of Ewelme - enjoyed seven club class flights and hotel accommodation, at GLOBE's expense. There's no greater love a Parliamentarian can give to the global warming cause

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.

I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this
document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be
2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site,
clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.

Given some of their requirements, the JIF bid may be useful.

An important requirement seems to be to attract an "internationally
renowned and charismatic scientist" to be overall Director. Do you think we
should sound out Schneider? Watson? ??

But Dr Pachauri, 70, rejected calls for his resignation and insisted he would remain as chairman until after publication of the IPCC's next report in 2014. ...


"It is not correct to say there are people who don't trust me," he said.

BBC News - Climate science must be more open, say MPs but i dont expect it to be of any consequence and will be pooped

they agreed not to ask him the tough questions. They did not did not investigate "hide the decline" properly. They did not investigate Jones telling the group that Briffa is to supply a false statement. They did not investigate claims that the Hockey Stick was OK now, all has been resolved. etc etc.
It was simply a vote of 3 MPs against one.
In any case, this is now a job for several courts to proceed on, not for friendly enquiries, not for stacked university panels.
.