[quote]I'm afraid the CRU e-mails show that they really did conspire to manipulate and hide data. They also conspired to make sure any research which challenged them would not be peer reviewed, and so not be published.[/quote]
I'm sorry, they didn't conspire to hide data. And if you think one research centre in East Anglia can dictate to a global, independent peer review system you're clutching at straws. Those e-mails, while some were embarrassing, just dealt with dealing with a problem between two different ways of measuring temperatures of the past from tree rings. Read up on dendroclimatology and the 'divergence problem' and those emails will fall into context quite quickly.
And since these emails have been out in the open, and since you think the CRU in East Anglia wanted to censor contradictory evidence, or papers highlighting flaws in their data by way of somehow pressuring the peer review system, then this leak must surely have blown their plan out of the water and all these sceptics who don't believe in global warming have had their papers reviewed and published. And if these sceptics are right then the majority in this field have reviewed the contradictory data, seen it's all kosher and been won over...................accept none of this has happened yet. Maybe, just maybe...................now hold on to your seat here because what I'm about to say may rock your socks off.................maybe this was just a few emails taken out of context which the sceptics and -mainly ignorant- media (remember how I told you how the media don't even know how to use the word 'theory' in it's proper context?) blew it all out of proportion because it was a story?
You don't believe because you don't want to believe.........that's what I think.
Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Sam Slater wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, they didn't conspire to hide data. And if you think
> one research centre in East Anglia can dictate to a global,
> independent peer review system you're clutching at straws.
> Those e-mails, while some were embarrassing, just dealt with
> dealing with a problem between two different ways of measuring
> temperatures of the past from tree rings. Read up on
> dendroclimatology and the 'divergence problem' and those emails
> will fall into context quite quickly.
>
The CRU is not just one research centre, it and Hansen's NASA research centre are two of the crucial centres of AGW theorising, and of course they back each other up in propping up their theories. In their e-mails they talk about suppressing contrary research papers. The AGW community is small enough for so-called peer review to be a bit of a joke, they are all scratching each other's backs. I believe the scam has run its course.
>
> I'm sorry, they didn't conspire to hide data. And if you think
> one research centre in East Anglia can dictate to a global,
> independent peer review system you're clutching at straws.
> Those e-mails, while some were embarrassing, just dealt with
> dealing with a problem between two different ways of measuring
> temperatures of the past from tree rings. Read up on
> dendroclimatology and the 'divergence problem' and those emails
> will fall into context quite quickly.
>
The CRU is not just one research centre, it and Hansen's NASA research centre are two of the crucial centres of AGW theorising, and of course they back each other up in propping up their theories. In their e-mails they talk about suppressing contrary research papers. The AGW community is small enough for so-called peer review to be a bit of a joke, they are all scratching each other's backs. I believe the scam has run its course.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
[quote]The CRU is not just one research centre,[/quote]
I don't know where I said, or even implied that it was. In fact I'm sure I've tried to hammer home the point, on more that one occasion, that there are many many many other research centres of this kind worldwide.
[quote]it and Hansen's NASA research centre are two of the crucial centres of AGW theorising, and of course they back each other up in propping up their theories.[/quote]
Seriously, you're paranoid. Enjoy a good conspiracy maybe? The only thing that can 'prop up' a theory is evidence. Evidence has no agenda, it just IS.
[quote]The AGW community is small enough for so-called peer review to be a bit of a joke, they are all scratching each other's backs.[/quote]
All scratching each other's backs, eh? And you have proof of this or is this just your opinion? The opinion of a sceptic who thinks most climatologists are charlatans, I may add. You still cannot grasp how the peer review system works, and any data published, or any experiments made, are clearly described so they can be replicated by anybody - inside or outside the field. And I don't understand what NASA would get out of backing up an East Anglian research unit, risking it's own credibility. What's their motive? They are funded by a government that has continually refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and reside in a nation that are one of the highest carbon emitters on Earth. Their government supposedly bombed Iraq to acquire oil (I don't believe that btw...just going with an all too common view) so I can't see the people in Washington as people who're eager to keep pumping more cash into climate research. Even less so if they're caught up in the supposed lies you think they're caught up in.
[quote]I believe the scam has run its course.[/quote]
Of course you do. Like I said: you don't believe because you don't want to believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, no doubt you think we never landed on the moon, the US government bombed the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism and aliens really did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If these things make life more interesting for you then fine..............doesn't mean they're true. Sorry.
I don't know where I said, or even implied that it was. In fact I'm sure I've tried to hammer home the point, on more that one occasion, that there are many many many other research centres of this kind worldwide.
[quote]it and Hansen's NASA research centre are two of the crucial centres of AGW theorising, and of course they back each other up in propping up their theories.[/quote]
Seriously, you're paranoid. Enjoy a good conspiracy maybe? The only thing that can 'prop up' a theory is evidence. Evidence has no agenda, it just IS.
[quote]The AGW community is small enough for so-called peer review to be a bit of a joke, they are all scratching each other's backs.[/quote]
All scratching each other's backs, eh? And you have proof of this or is this just your opinion? The opinion of a sceptic who thinks most climatologists are charlatans, I may add. You still cannot grasp how the peer review system works, and any data published, or any experiments made, are clearly described so they can be replicated by anybody - inside or outside the field. And I don't understand what NASA would get out of backing up an East Anglian research unit, risking it's own credibility. What's their motive? They are funded by a government that has continually refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol and reside in a nation that are one of the highest carbon emitters on Earth. Their government supposedly bombed Iraq to acquire oil (I don't believe that btw...just going with an all too common view) so I can't see the people in Washington as people who're eager to keep pumping more cash into climate research. Even less so if they're caught up in the supposed lies you think they're caught up in.
[quote]I believe the scam has run its course.[/quote]
Of course you do. Like I said: you don't believe because you don't want to believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, no doubt you think we never landed on the moon, the US government bombed the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism and aliens really did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If these things make life more interesting for you then fine..............doesn't mean they're true. Sorry.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Sam Slater wrote:
> [quote]The CRU is not just one research centre,[/quote]
>
> I don't know where I said, or even implied that it was. In fact
> I'm sure I've tried to hammer home the point, on more that one
> occasion, that there are many many many other research centres
> of this kind worldwide.
On the contrary, the CRU is one of the most important single climate change research facilities in the world. That is why the CRU e-mails are so important. The CRU and Hansen's NASA unit are crucial to the whole AGW theory.
>
> [quote]it and Hansen's NASA research centre are two of the
> crucial centres of AGW theorising, and of course they back each
> other up in propping up their theories.[/quote]
>
> Seriously, you're paranoid. Enjoy a good conspiracy maybe? The
> only thing that can 'prop up' a theory is evidence. Evidence
> has no agenda, it just IS.
The evidence of the e-mails is exactly that. CRU and Hansen really do prop each other up.
>
> [quote]The AGW community is small enough for so-called peer
> review to be a bit of a joke, they are all scratching each
> other's backs.[/quote]
>
> All scratching each other's backs, eh? And you have proof of
> this or is this just your opinion? The opinion of a sceptic who
> thinks most climatologists are charlatans, I may add. You still
> cannot grasp how the peer review system works, and any data
> published, or any experiments made, are clearly described so
> they can be replicated by anybody - inside or outside the
> field.
That's what can't be done with AGW, We don't have another Earth to experiment on. Instead, we have CRU fidlling the figures to fit their theory, and suppressing any evidence to the contrary. Unscientific behaviour, I'd have said. You will note that the CRU destroyed their raw data, all we have left now is the data as it has been filtered by their research. Apparently, they did not have enough space to keep the raw data, which means that no-one can seek to replicate their research. Is that how scientists should behave, or charlatans?
And I don't understand what NASA would get out of
> backing up an East Anglian research unit, risking it's own
> credibility. What's their motive?
By saying this, you show that you do not understand the relationship between CRU and Hansen I'm afraid. At its top the AGW community really is very small. The fact that Hansen's unit gets its funding from NASA does not mean that he is involved with the space programme by the way. Hansen's unit is autonomous, so there is no point asking what NASA get out of it.
>
> Of course you do. Like I said: you don't believe because you
> don't want to believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to
> believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again,
> no doubt you think we never landed on the moon, the US
> government bombed the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism
> and aliens really did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If
> these things make life more interesting for you then
> fine..............doesn't mean they're true. Sorry.
Again with the facile ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. I am basing my points on the very e-mails that the CRU sought to keep private. Its their own words, if it's a conspiracy, it's theirs. You have lost the argument. I could subject you to similar ad hominem attacks, but what would be the point?
> [quote]The CRU is not just one research centre,[/quote]
>
> I don't know where I said, or even implied that it was. In fact
> I'm sure I've tried to hammer home the point, on more that one
> occasion, that there are many many many other research centres
> of this kind worldwide.
On the contrary, the CRU is one of the most important single climate change research facilities in the world. That is why the CRU e-mails are so important. The CRU and Hansen's NASA unit are crucial to the whole AGW theory.
>
> [quote]it and Hansen's NASA research centre are two of the
> crucial centres of AGW theorising, and of course they back each
> other up in propping up their theories.[/quote]
>
> Seriously, you're paranoid. Enjoy a good conspiracy maybe? The
> only thing that can 'prop up' a theory is evidence. Evidence
> has no agenda, it just IS.
The evidence of the e-mails is exactly that. CRU and Hansen really do prop each other up.
>
> [quote]The AGW community is small enough for so-called peer
> review to be a bit of a joke, they are all scratching each
> other's backs.[/quote]
>
> All scratching each other's backs, eh? And you have proof of
> this or is this just your opinion? The opinion of a sceptic who
> thinks most climatologists are charlatans, I may add. You still
> cannot grasp how the peer review system works, and any data
> published, or any experiments made, are clearly described so
> they can be replicated by anybody - inside or outside the
> field.
That's what can't be done with AGW, We don't have another Earth to experiment on. Instead, we have CRU fidlling the figures to fit their theory, and suppressing any evidence to the contrary. Unscientific behaviour, I'd have said. You will note that the CRU destroyed their raw data, all we have left now is the data as it has been filtered by their research. Apparently, they did not have enough space to keep the raw data, which means that no-one can seek to replicate their research. Is that how scientists should behave, or charlatans?
And I don't understand what NASA would get out of
> backing up an East Anglian research unit, risking it's own
> credibility. What's their motive?
By saying this, you show that you do not understand the relationship between CRU and Hansen I'm afraid. At its top the AGW community really is very small. The fact that Hansen's unit gets its funding from NASA does not mean that he is involved with the space programme by the way. Hansen's unit is autonomous, so there is no point asking what NASA get out of it.
>
> Of course you do. Like I said: you don't believe because you
> don't want to believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to
> believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again,
> no doubt you think we never landed on the moon, the US
> government bombed the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism
> and aliens really did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If
> these things make life more interesting for you then
> fine..............doesn't mean they're true. Sorry.
Again with the facile ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. I am basing my points on the very e-mails that the CRU sought to keep private. Its their own words, if it's a conspiracy, it's theirs. You have lost the argument. I could subject you to similar ad hominem attacks, but what would be the point?
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
[quote]On the contrary, the CRU is one of the most important single climate change research facilities in the world. That is why the CRU e-mails are so important.[/quote]
How so? In that they are one of the better funded ones? What's important is the evidence and data; what's important is that any other research centre on the globe can replicate what the CRU in East Anglia have done to either confirm or challenge their theory. You think they've teamed up with NASA's lab to silence these challenges by pressuring the review boards in some way. Paranoid nonsense.
[quote]The CRU and Hansen's NASA unit are crucial to the whole AGW theory.[/quote]
For the second time: no they're not. Only the evidence is important to back up any theory. For real.
[quote]The evidence of the e-mails is exactly that. CRU and Hansen really do prop each other up.[/quote]
I've asked you to read up on the divergence problem and dendroclimatology already. This will put everything into context. You don't want to do it either because you won't be able to understand it, or you don't want anything to change your mind on the matter. I'm going for the latter, which is actually a bit of a compliment if you think about it.
[quote]That's what can't be done with AGW, We don't have another Earth to experiment on. Instead, we have CRU fidlling the figures to fit their theory, and suppressing any evidence to the contrary. Unscientific behaviour, I'd have said.[/quote]
Have you actually read anything I've said? My guess was that you had because you're replying. The figures weren't 'fiddled with'. It's just a trick to merge two different ways of measuring temperatures from tree rings because they produce different results...which may confuse and give the wrong impression. The important thing is that the trend is the same. For the third time, read up on the divergence problem.
[quote]Apparently, they did not have enough space to keep the raw data, which means that no-one can seek to replicate their research.[/quote]
Complete and utter garbage. How can no one else gather data about the Earth's temperature history? I mean, we're all living on the same planet, right? If I told you the average amount of rainfall in Derbyshire was 12cm per year over the last 20 years, then destroyed my findings how couldn't you go and regather the same sort of data and do your own testing? You're not making sense.
[quote]By saying this, you show that you do not understand the relationship between CRU and Hansen I'm afraid.[/quote]
You're right. I don't know the full relationship between the CRU and Hansen. How could I? How could you? All I can do is look at the available evidence and explanations for myself and see if they make sense in my own mind. They do. Your -or the sceptics'- explanation (or should I call it a conspiracy?) does not.
[quote]The fact that Hansen's unit gets its funding from NASA does not mean that he is involved with the space programme by the way.[/quote]
Who mentioned the damn space programme? Why bring that up? Is this random trivia night or something? Ok, I'll play along: And don't you go thinking water boils at 100 degrees at 18,000ft like it does at sea level! Ha! The fact is the government fund NASA and NASA funds Hansen. If Hansen's motive for helping the CRU to manipulate or hide data is more funding then surely NASA would have to justify more money from their government, or make cutbacks on other research. And what would be the point of more funding if he knows the research is ultimately pointless? Can he just pocket it for himself and doesn't have to supply receipts or attend meetings every time he wants to purchase something?
[quote]Again with the facile ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. I am basing my points on the very e-mails that the CRU sought to keep private.[/quote]
Attacks? It should only be considered an attack if you think believing in such things are stupid. And of course they sought to keep their e-mails private. Why not? Don't you like your e-mails to be private? How many places of work like to publicise their e-mail databases? You're basing the whole thinking of man-made global warming on a few leaked e-mails? E-mails that you're taking completely out of context because you either cannot understand, or refuse to try and understand the context of their wording nor the subject they're involved in at all.
[quote]Its their own words, if it's a conspiracy, it's theirs. You have lost the argument.[/quote]
Lol. That's exactly what the creationists say.
How so? In that they are one of the better funded ones? What's important is the evidence and data; what's important is that any other research centre on the globe can replicate what the CRU in East Anglia have done to either confirm or challenge their theory. You think they've teamed up with NASA's lab to silence these challenges by pressuring the review boards in some way. Paranoid nonsense.
[quote]The CRU and Hansen's NASA unit are crucial to the whole AGW theory.[/quote]
For the second time: no they're not. Only the evidence is important to back up any theory. For real.
[quote]The evidence of the e-mails is exactly that. CRU and Hansen really do prop each other up.[/quote]
I've asked you to read up on the divergence problem and dendroclimatology already. This will put everything into context. You don't want to do it either because you won't be able to understand it, or you don't want anything to change your mind on the matter. I'm going for the latter, which is actually a bit of a compliment if you think about it.
[quote]That's what can't be done with AGW, We don't have another Earth to experiment on. Instead, we have CRU fidlling the figures to fit their theory, and suppressing any evidence to the contrary. Unscientific behaviour, I'd have said.[/quote]
Have you actually read anything I've said? My guess was that you had because you're replying. The figures weren't 'fiddled with'. It's just a trick to merge two different ways of measuring temperatures from tree rings because they produce different results...which may confuse and give the wrong impression. The important thing is that the trend is the same. For the third time, read up on the divergence problem.
[quote]Apparently, they did not have enough space to keep the raw data, which means that no-one can seek to replicate their research.[/quote]
Complete and utter garbage. How can no one else gather data about the Earth's temperature history? I mean, we're all living on the same planet, right? If I told you the average amount of rainfall in Derbyshire was 12cm per year over the last 20 years, then destroyed my findings how couldn't you go and regather the same sort of data and do your own testing? You're not making sense.
[quote]By saying this, you show that you do not understand the relationship between CRU and Hansen I'm afraid.[/quote]
You're right. I don't know the full relationship between the CRU and Hansen. How could I? How could you? All I can do is look at the available evidence and explanations for myself and see if they make sense in my own mind. They do. Your -or the sceptics'- explanation (or should I call it a conspiracy?) does not.
[quote]The fact that Hansen's unit gets its funding from NASA does not mean that he is involved with the space programme by the way.[/quote]
Who mentioned the damn space programme? Why bring that up? Is this random trivia night or something? Ok, I'll play along: And don't you go thinking water boils at 100 degrees at 18,000ft like it does at sea level! Ha! The fact is the government fund NASA and NASA funds Hansen. If Hansen's motive for helping the CRU to manipulate or hide data is more funding then surely NASA would have to justify more money from their government, or make cutbacks on other research. And what would be the point of more funding if he knows the research is ultimately pointless? Can he just pocket it for himself and doesn't have to supply receipts or attend meetings every time he wants to purchase something?
[quote]Again with the facile ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. I am basing my points on the very e-mails that the CRU sought to keep private.[/quote]
Attacks? It should only be considered an attack if you think believing in such things are stupid. And of course they sought to keep their e-mails private. Why not? Don't you like your e-mails to be private? How many places of work like to publicise their e-mail databases? You're basing the whole thinking of man-made global warming on a few leaked e-mails? E-mails that you're taking completely out of context because you either cannot understand, or refuse to try and understand the context of their wording nor the subject they're involved in at all.
[quote]Its their own words, if it's a conspiracy, it's theirs. You have lost the argument.[/quote]
Lol. That's exactly what the creationists say.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Sam Slater wrote:
> [quote]On the contrary, the CRU is one of the most important
> single climate change research facilities in the world. That is
> why the CRU e-mails are so important.[/quote]
>
> How so? In that they are one of the better funded ones? What's
> important is the evidence and data; what's important is that
> any other research centre on the globe can replicate what the
> CRU in East Anglia have done to either confirm or challenge
> their theory. You think they've teamed up with NASA's lab to
> silence these challenges by pressuring the review boards in
> some way. Paranoid nonsense.
I am afraid you really do not understand the central role CRU plays in the whole AGW community. It is their work on global temperatures which provides the data other researchers use, and yet it is this very data which they have been manipulating to fit their theory.
> [quote]The CRU and Hansen's NASA unit are crucial to the whole
> AGW theory.[/quote]
>
> For the second time: no they're not. Only the evidence is
> important to back up any theory. For real.
And they provide that very evidence. That's why CRU and Hansen are crucial.
>
> Complete and utter garbage. How can no one else gather data
> about the Earth's temperature history? I mean, we're all living
> on the same planet, right? If I told you the average amount of
> rainfall in Derbyshire was 12cm per year over the last 20
> years, then destroyed my findings how couldn't you go and
> regather the same sort of data and do your own testing? You're
> not making sense.
Are you serious? Try and compile data for the earth's temperature for the past thousand years if you like, you won't find it easy. That's why CRU was using tree ring data. But they ended up using data from one tree in Siberia to fit their theory, and when tree ring data diverged from measured data, they adopted the "Nature trick" to fudge the figures.
>
> [quote]By saying this, you show that you do not understand the
> relationship between CRU and Hansen I'm afraid.[/quote]
>
> You're right. I don't know the full relationship between the
> CRU and Hansen. How could I? How could you? All I can do is
> look at the available evidence and explanations for myself and
> see if they make sense in my own mind. They do. Your -or the
> sceptics'- explanation (or should I call it a conspiracy?) does
> not.
If you do not know the relationship between Hansen and CRU, then you do not know enough to talk about this subject. Read their e-mails!
>
> [quote]The fact that Hansen's unit gets its funding from NASA
> does not mean that he is involved with the space programme by
> the way.[/quote]
>
> Who mentioned the damn space programme? Why bring that up? Is
> this random trivia night or something?
You asked what was in this for NASA. My point is that Hansen is only part of NASA for funding purposes, his research has nothing to do with the NASA space programme, so there is really no point even asking the question, it only shows your ignorance I'm afraid.
>
> [quote]Again with the facile ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. I am
> basing my points on the very e-mails that the CRU sought to
> keep private.[/quote]
>
> Attacks? It should only be considered an attack if you think
> believing in such things are stupid.
Is that meant to be some sort of defence of your pathetic attacks? Because if so, it is even more pathetic than the attacks themselves. Nul points.
>And of course they sought
> to keep their e-mails private. Why not? Don't you like your
> e-mails to be private? How many places of work like to
> publicise their e-mail databases? You're basing the whole
> thinking of man-made global warming on a few leaked e-mails?
> E-mails that you're taking completely out of context because
> you either cannot understand, or refuse to try and understand
> the context of their wording nor the subject they're involved
> in at all.
If you bother to read the e-mails, you will see that Dr Jones at CRU and others were conspiring to avoid the FoI Act requests of other researchers, because they did not accept their theories. They were willing to destroy data rather than hand it over. The actions of scientists? A true scientist will show all his data to allow replication of his results, anything else is like asking people to believe in magic. No wonder they wanted to keep their e-mails private, but I am very glad that someone with a bit of decency leaked them and exposed their sharp practice.
>
> [quote]Its their own words, if it's a conspiracy, it's theirs.
> You have lost the argument.[/quote]
>
> Lol. That's exactly what the creationists say.
What, after they have read God's e-mails?
> [quote]On the contrary, the CRU is one of the most important
> single climate change research facilities in the world. That is
> why the CRU e-mails are so important.[/quote]
>
> How so? In that they are one of the better funded ones? What's
> important is the evidence and data; what's important is that
> any other research centre on the globe can replicate what the
> CRU in East Anglia have done to either confirm or challenge
> their theory. You think they've teamed up with NASA's lab to
> silence these challenges by pressuring the review boards in
> some way. Paranoid nonsense.
I am afraid you really do not understand the central role CRU plays in the whole AGW community. It is their work on global temperatures which provides the data other researchers use, and yet it is this very data which they have been manipulating to fit their theory.
> [quote]The CRU and Hansen's NASA unit are crucial to the whole
> AGW theory.[/quote]
>
> For the second time: no they're not. Only the evidence is
> important to back up any theory. For real.
And they provide that very evidence. That's why CRU and Hansen are crucial.
>
> Complete and utter garbage. How can no one else gather data
> about the Earth's temperature history? I mean, we're all living
> on the same planet, right? If I told you the average amount of
> rainfall in Derbyshire was 12cm per year over the last 20
> years, then destroyed my findings how couldn't you go and
> regather the same sort of data and do your own testing? You're
> not making sense.
Are you serious? Try and compile data for the earth's temperature for the past thousand years if you like, you won't find it easy. That's why CRU was using tree ring data. But they ended up using data from one tree in Siberia to fit their theory, and when tree ring data diverged from measured data, they adopted the "Nature trick" to fudge the figures.
>
> [quote]By saying this, you show that you do not understand the
> relationship between CRU and Hansen I'm afraid.[/quote]
>
> You're right. I don't know the full relationship between the
> CRU and Hansen. How could I? How could you? All I can do is
> look at the available evidence and explanations for myself and
> see if they make sense in my own mind. They do. Your -or the
> sceptics'- explanation (or should I call it a conspiracy?) does
> not.
If you do not know the relationship between Hansen and CRU, then you do not know enough to talk about this subject. Read their e-mails!
>
> [quote]The fact that Hansen's unit gets its funding from NASA
> does not mean that he is involved with the space programme by
> the way.[/quote]
>
> Who mentioned the damn space programme? Why bring that up? Is
> this random trivia night or something?
You asked what was in this for NASA. My point is that Hansen is only part of NASA for funding purposes, his research has nothing to do with the NASA space programme, so there is really no point even asking the question, it only shows your ignorance I'm afraid.
>
> [quote]Again with the facile ad hominem attacks. Pathetic. I am
> basing my points on the very e-mails that the CRU sought to
> keep private.[/quote]
>
> Attacks? It should only be considered an attack if you think
> believing in such things are stupid.
Is that meant to be some sort of defence of your pathetic attacks? Because if so, it is even more pathetic than the attacks themselves. Nul points.
>And of course they sought
> to keep their e-mails private. Why not? Don't you like your
> e-mails to be private? How many places of work like to
> publicise their e-mail databases? You're basing the whole
> thinking of man-made global warming on a few leaked e-mails?
> E-mails that you're taking completely out of context because
> you either cannot understand, or refuse to try and understand
> the context of their wording nor the subject they're involved
> in at all.
If you bother to read the e-mails, you will see that Dr Jones at CRU and others were conspiring to avoid the FoI Act requests of other researchers, because they did not accept their theories. They were willing to destroy data rather than hand it over. The actions of scientists? A true scientist will show all his data to allow replication of his results, anything else is like asking people to believe in magic. No wonder they wanted to keep their e-mails private, but I am very glad that someone with a bit of decency leaked them and exposed their sharp practice.
>
> [quote]Its their own words, if it's a conspiracy, it's theirs.
> You have lost the argument.[/quote]
>
> Lol. That's exactly what the creationists say.
What, after they have read God's e-mails?
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
[quote]I am afraid you really do not understand the central role CRU plays in the whole AGW community.[/quote]
I think I acknowledged that in my previous post. Neither do you.
[quote]It is their work on global temperatures which provides the data other researchers use, and yet it is this very data which they have been manipulating to fit their theory.[/quote]
False. There's no evidence of any data being manipulated - at least not in a way you're accusing them of.
[quote]If you do not know the relationship between Hansen and CRU, then you do not know enough to talk about this subject. Read their e-mails![/quote]
I have. The difference between me and you is that I can put them in the context in which they are meant. You, it seems, cannot. Why do you think no independent committee or reputable journalist has had their guts for garters yet? Because once you know the whole story, there is no 'story'. Have you read up on the divergence problem yet?
[quote]And they provide that very evidence. That's why CRU and Hansen are crucial.[/quote]
No exactly true. The have the evidence and have run tests which provide data, which back up a hypothesis or theory (or provide new ones). That data may be provided and the evidence may be shared so others can confirm their findings. Are you saying they've destroyed actual evidence too? How far are you going with this conspiracy?
[quote]You asked what was in this for NASA. My point is that Hansen is only part of NASA for funding purposes, his research has nothing to do with the NASA space programme, so there is really no point even asking the question, it only shows your ignorance I'm afraid.[/quote]
Wtf are you on about? The question 'what's in it for NASA?' obviously alludes to asking what their motive would be for lying.........or covering up evidence, or whatever it is you've got in your head. I still don't know why you think mentioning the space programme answers my query. No wonder you're liable to take e-mails out of context when you can't even follow our little discussion properly.
[quote]Is that meant to be some sort of defence of your pathetic attacks? Because if so, it is even more pathetic than the attacks themselves. Nul points.[/quote]
Lol. I still wouldn't call it an attack. You're being overly dramatic. Here's my 'attack' in full. I don't think it's that bad: "I said: you don't believe because you don't want to believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, no doubt you think we never landed on the moon, the US government bombed the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism and aliens really did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If these things make life more interesting for you then fine..............doesn't mean they're true. Sorry."
I even say sorry at the end. How sweet am I?
[quote]If you bother to read the e-mails, you will see that Dr Jones at CRU and others were conspiring to avoid the FoI Act requests of other researchers, because they did not accept their theories. They were willing to destroy data rather than hand it over. The actions of scientists? A true scientist will show all his data to allow replication of his results, anything else is like asking people to believe in magic. No wonder they wanted to keep their e-mails private, but I am very glad that someone with a bit of decency leaked them and exposed their sharp practice.[/quote]
You've read into this what you want. The contents of those e-mails raised a few eyebrows and embarrassed a few more, but there's no proof of any cover up, lies or manipulating data in an underhand way. You see, that's what happens when you listen in on other peoples' conversations without knowing fully what they're talking about.......you often get the wrong end of the stick.
And to ease your worries, the Earth, throughout it's recent history, has been host to plenty of Siberian trees. There'll be plenty of other semi-fossilised trees for others to run tests on - don't you lose a wink thinking otherwise. On the downside, for you, I'm betting the results won't be to you liking.
I think I acknowledged that in my previous post. Neither do you.
[quote]It is their work on global temperatures which provides the data other researchers use, and yet it is this very data which they have been manipulating to fit their theory.[/quote]
False. There's no evidence of any data being manipulated - at least not in a way you're accusing them of.
[quote]If you do not know the relationship between Hansen and CRU, then you do not know enough to talk about this subject. Read their e-mails![/quote]
I have. The difference between me and you is that I can put them in the context in which they are meant. You, it seems, cannot. Why do you think no independent committee or reputable journalist has had their guts for garters yet? Because once you know the whole story, there is no 'story'. Have you read up on the divergence problem yet?
[quote]And they provide that very evidence. That's why CRU and Hansen are crucial.[/quote]
No exactly true. The have the evidence and have run tests which provide data, which back up a hypothesis or theory (or provide new ones). That data may be provided and the evidence may be shared so others can confirm their findings. Are you saying they've destroyed actual evidence too? How far are you going with this conspiracy?
[quote]You asked what was in this for NASA. My point is that Hansen is only part of NASA for funding purposes, his research has nothing to do with the NASA space programme, so there is really no point even asking the question, it only shows your ignorance I'm afraid.[/quote]
Wtf are you on about? The question 'what's in it for NASA?' obviously alludes to asking what their motive would be for lying.........or covering up evidence, or whatever it is you've got in your head. I still don't know why you think mentioning the space programme answers my query. No wonder you're liable to take e-mails out of context when you can't even follow our little discussion properly.
[quote]Is that meant to be some sort of defence of your pathetic attacks? Because if so, it is even more pathetic than the attacks themselves. Nul points.[/quote]
Lol. I still wouldn't call it an attack. You're being overly dramatic. Here's my 'attack' in full. I don't think it's that bad: "I said: you don't believe because you don't want to believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, no doubt you think we never landed on the moon, the US government bombed the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism and aliens really did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If these things make life more interesting for you then fine..............doesn't mean they're true. Sorry."
I even say sorry at the end. How sweet am I?
[quote]If you bother to read the e-mails, you will see that Dr Jones at CRU and others were conspiring to avoid the FoI Act requests of other researchers, because they did not accept their theories. They were willing to destroy data rather than hand it over. The actions of scientists? A true scientist will show all his data to allow replication of his results, anything else is like asking people to believe in magic. No wonder they wanted to keep their e-mails private, but I am very glad that someone with a bit of decency leaked them and exposed their sharp practice.[/quote]
You've read into this what you want. The contents of those e-mails raised a few eyebrows and embarrassed a few more, but there's no proof of any cover up, lies or manipulating data in an underhand way. You see, that's what happens when you listen in on other peoples' conversations without knowing fully what they're talking about.......you often get the wrong end of the stick.
And to ease your worries, the Earth, throughout it's recent history, has been host to plenty of Siberian trees. There'll be plenty of other semi-fossilised trees for others to run tests on - don't you lose a wink thinking otherwise. On the downside, for you, I'm betting the results won't be to you liking.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Global Warming - Skeptical Yet?
Sam Slater wrote:
> [quote]I am afraid you really do not understand the central
> role CRU plays in the whole AGW community.[/quote]
>
> I think I acknowledged that in my previous post. Neither do
> you.
No, I do, that's the difference. The CRU, Hansen and Mann are the key players in the AGW community, and it is their integrity which has been trashed.
>
> No exactly true. The have the evidence and have run tests which
> provide data, which back up a hypothesis or theory (or provide
> new ones). That data may be provided and the evidence may be
> shared so others can confirm their findings. Are you saying
> they've destroyed actual evidence too? How far are you going
> with this conspiracy?
Yes, they have destroyed their raw data, that's a fact. All that is left is the data as processed through their filters. And even this data would not be shared with others, that was the point of the FoI requests, which they were trying to subvert, until the whole lot was leaked.
>
> Wtf are you on about? The question 'what's in it for NASA?'
> obviously alludes to asking what their motive would be for
> lying.........or covering up evidence, or whatever it is you've
> got in your head. I still don't know why you think mentioning
> the space programme answers my query. No wonder you're liable
> to take e-mails out of context when you can't even follow our
> little discussion properly.
My point, a reasonable one I think, is that there is nothing it in for NASA. Hansen's Goddard Institute is formally a part of NASA, but his activities have nothing to with the space programme, there's nothing in it for them one way or the other.
>
> Lol. I still wouldn't call it an attack. You're being overly
> dramatic. Here's my 'attack' in full. I don't think it's that
> bad: "I said: you don't believe because you don't want to
> believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to believe in
> evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, no doubt
> you think we never landed on the moon, the US government bombed
> the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism and aliens really
> did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If these things make
> life more interesting for you then fine..............doesn't
> mean they're true. Sorry."
>
> I even say sorry at the end. How sweet am I?
Sarky, I'd say.
>
> You've read into this what you want. The contents of those
> e-mails raised a few eyebrows and embarrassed a few more, but
> there's no proof of any cover up, lies or manipulating data in
> an underhand way. You see, that's what happens when you listen
> in on other peoples' conversations without knowing fully what
> they're talking about.......you often get the wrong end of the
> stick.
If you can't be bothered to see cover-ups, lies and manipulation when it is actually discussed by CRU, Hansen, Mann and the others in their e-mails, then nothing will convince you will it?
>
> And to ease your worries, the Earth, throughout it's recent
> history, has been host to plenty of Siberian trees. There'll be
> plenty of other semi-fossilised trees for others to run tests
> on - don't you lose a wink thinking otherwise. On the downside,
> for you, I'm betting the results won't be to you liking.
At the moment, the earth seems to be entering another mini ice age. There are no sun spots to be seen, and it's the coldest winter for decades, yet we are going to be bled dry to pay for windmills which, if they were built now, would be providing precisely no power. That's the scandal. We are being bled dry to pay for this nonsense.
> [quote]I am afraid you really do not understand the central
> role CRU plays in the whole AGW community.[/quote]
>
> I think I acknowledged that in my previous post. Neither do
> you.
No, I do, that's the difference. The CRU, Hansen and Mann are the key players in the AGW community, and it is their integrity which has been trashed.
>
> No exactly true. The have the evidence and have run tests which
> provide data, which back up a hypothesis or theory (or provide
> new ones). That data may be provided and the evidence may be
> shared so others can confirm their findings. Are you saying
> they've destroyed actual evidence too? How far are you going
> with this conspiracy?
Yes, they have destroyed their raw data, that's a fact. All that is left is the data as processed through their filters. And even this data would not be shared with others, that was the point of the FoI requests, which they were trying to subvert, until the whole lot was leaked.
>
> Wtf are you on about? The question 'what's in it for NASA?'
> obviously alludes to asking what their motive would be for
> lying.........or covering up evidence, or whatever it is you've
> got in your head. I still don't know why you think mentioning
> the space programme answers my query. No wonder you're liable
> to take e-mails out of context when you can't even follow our
> little discussion properly.
My point, a reasonable one I think, is that there is nothing it in for NASA. Hansen's Goddard Institute is formally a part of NASA, but his activities have nothing to with the space programme, there's nothing in it for them one way or the other.
>
> Lol. I still wouldn't call it an attack. You're being overly
> dramatic. Here's my 'attack' in full. I don't think it's that
> bad: "I said: you don't believe because you don't want to
> believe. You're like a creationist who refuses to believe in
> evolution despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, no doubt
> you think we never landed on the moon, the US government bombed
> the twin towers, MMR vaccines cause autism and aliens really
> did crash land in New Mexico a while back. If these things make
> life more interesting for you then fine..............doesn't
> mean they're true. Sorry."
>
> I even say sorry at the end. How sweet am I?
Sarky, I'd say.
>
> You've read into this what you want. The contents of those
> e-mails raised a few eyebrows and embarrassed a few more, but
> there's no proof of any cover up, lies or manipulating data in
> an underhand way. You see, that's what happens when you listen
> in on other peoples' conversations without knowing fully what
> they're talking about.......you often get the wrong end of the
> stick.
If you can't be bothered to see cover-ups, lies and manipulation when it is actually discussed by CRU, Hansen, Mann and the others in their e-mails, then nothing will convince you will it?
>
> And to ease your worries, the Earth, throughout it's recent
> history, has been host to plenty of Siberian trees. There'll be
> plenty of other semi-fossilised trees for others to run tests
> on - don't you lose a wink thinking otherwise. On the downside,
> for you, I'm betting the results won't be to you liking.
At the moment, the earth seems to be entering another mini ice age. There are no sun spots to be seen, and it's the coldest winter for decades, yet we are going to be bled dry to pay for windmills which, if they were built now, would be providing precisely no power. That's the scandal. We are being bled dry to pay for this nonsense.