Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,453
#1,453
Sandvol said:
Your almost as naïve as I am. I guess we want to believe the best in people.
Click to expand...

Me three. I like to give anyone (well most people) the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. That's the beauty of an internet forum. Many folks just jump in with both feet and leave no room for doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,454
#1,454
Sandvol said:
Try it again. When I do it is coming up. March 1, 2010
Click to expand...

Ended up just googling it.

I watched the 5 videos. I didn't hear anything that gave me a lot of heartburn there.

I think the MP with the MD hit the nail on the head though. Jones and his team went to a lot of work to secure information other data sets didn't have. He didn't want to just turn that over because it gives him a publishing edge.
 
#1,455
#1,455
TennTradition said:
Ended up just googling it.

I watched the 5 videos. I didn't hear anything that gave me a lot of heartburn there.

I think the MP with the MD hit the nail on the head though. Jones and his team went to a lot of work to secure information other data sets didn't have. He didn't want to just turn that over because it gives him a publishing edge.
Click to expand...

Again your naivety is showing. Maybe he didn't want to turn it over because he didn't want to give the opposite camp information that weakens AGW. Especially when his camp collected the data. There's another example of collusion I'll show you forthcoming.
 
#1,456
#1,456
Sandvol said:
Again your naivety is showing. Maybe he didn't want to turn it over because he didn't want to give the opposite camp information that weakens AGW. Especially when his camp collected the data. There's another example of collusion I'll show you forthcoming.
Click to expand...

So is your thought that he uncovered something in the data from these other stations that he wants to hide? Because his results agree with other international processed data sets, the raw data for which is available. At this point, I imagine CRU has provided >85% of their raw data and the individual met offices from the countries they haven't provided would likely turn that over to individual researchers if requested...they just don't want a third party posting their data on the web. They want the hits/citations.
 
#1,457
#1,457
I think your bias is showing over my naïveté. There is a lot of work that goes into getting large data sets like these, particularly when you have to enter I to agreements with multiple countries' met offices. While in a perfect world he'd hand that right over, he is making a name for himself and wants to maintain his competitive advantage.

It's not what is best for science, but academic labs aren't always ideal.
 
#1,458
#1,458
We can argue his motives all day long and throw all kinds of supposition out there but the only fact of the case is he lied. He admitted he lied. That is a fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,462
#1,462
We also know that the information he omitted would weaken AGW and Mann's "hockey stick". That is another fact. That is two facts. Not supposition.
 
#1,463
#1,463
Sandvol said:
We can argue his motives all day long and throw all kinds of supposition out there but the only fact of the case is he lied. He admitted he lied. That is a fact.
Click to expand...

And at what point, 4 years later now was his work shown to be a scam or in disagreement with other independent international results?
 
#1,465
#1,465
Sandvol said:
We also know that the information he omitted would weaken AGW and Mann's "hockey stick". That is another fact. That is two facts. Not supposition.
Click to expand...

That testimony wasn't about omission. What did he omit?

I don't take issue with what was covered in that testimony. If there are other facts I can review I'll give them a look and make up my mind.
 
#1,467
#1,467
TennTradition said:
And at what point, 4 years later now was his work shown to be a scam or in disagreement with other independent international results?
Click to expand...

Never said that but when you have two prominent climate scientists appearing to collude that raises eyebrows. If you purport to be objective doesn't that raise your eyebrows?
 
#1,469
#1,469
Sandvol said:
In the freedom of information request that started this whole scandal.
Click to expand...

So not handing over the information is omission and therefore lying? Or what are you saying?

It must be something other than the data he said he didn't turn over because of agreements he had in place.
 
#1,470
#1,470
Sandvol said:
Never said that but when you have two prominent climate scientists appearing to collude that raises eyebrows. If you purport to be objective doesn't that raise your eyebrows?
Click to expand...

Who was the other scientist and what was the collusion?

I'm much slower to raise my eyebrows if someone's work isn't producing an anomalous result - but yes, collusion would concern me if I see signs of it happening. I would question the motivation. Often it is professional ambition.
 
#1,471
#1,471
TennTradition said:
So not handing over the information is omission and therefore lying? Or what are you saying?

It must be something other than the data he said he didn't turn over because of agreements he had in place.
Click to expand...

He isn't allowed to make that decision. He is required to by British Law. Let's say the police are investigating you in a criminal case and ask to see your cellphone but don't know you have two cell phones and you only give them one then that is lying by omission. I'll get on to some more facts in a while. You asked me why I don't trust pre 1958 data and I'm telling you why and or why I don't trust climate scientists but you have to be objective. Back a little later.
 
#1,472
#1,472
TennTradition said:
Who was the other scientist and what was the collusion?

I'm much slower to raise my eyebrows if someone's work isn't producing an anomalous result - but yes, collusion would concern me if I see signs of it happening. I would question the motivation. Often it is professional ambition.
Click to expand...

The other scientist was Mann from Penn State. The "hockey stick" guy. And, I'm not saying they did collude but they are two prominent scientists and if there is even an appearance of impropriety or only 1% of what the allegations are true then that is serious. They are supposed to be completely objective. Back later.
 
#1,473
#1,473
So an appearance that there could be something fishy because a guy isn't willing to hand over raw data that he contractually obtained from others who do not want him to release it constitutes a dagger in the heart of AGW?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,474
#1,474
TennTradition said:
So an appearance that there could be something fishy because a guy isn't willing to hand over raw data that he contractually obtained from others who do not want him to release it constitutes a dagger in the heart of AGW?
Click to expand...

Again, let's just stick to the facts:

Jones failed to provide the information in the freedom of information request.

This information weakens AGW and Mann's "hockey stick."

Jones admitted he omitted the information intentionally.

At the time Jones and Mann were communicating by e-mail and some of the e-mails were lost.

These are indisputable facts.

Now may I ask you a question before I go on with other facts? What peer reviewed study are you talking about that used similar data collection methods and testing that corroborated Jones' unreleased information and was published?
 
#1,475
#1,475
TennTradition said:
So an appearance that there could be something fishy because a guy isn't willing to hand over raw data that he contractually obtained from others who do not want him to release it constitutes a dagger in the heart of AGW?
Click to expand...

Also, here is the letter from SMHI that allowed Jones to release the data so in fact he did lie to the committee. This is another fact.
 

Attachments

  • doc111209.pdf
    242.7 KB · Views: 2
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top