Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Actually you are on the left and Mojo is in the middle with the majority. Most in this country don't believe in man-made global warming.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...rrent_events/environment_energy/energy_update

 

Remember, we're talking about raw data. This is data that hasn't had the typical influences calculated into it (which are mentioned in the article). Notice that they didn't mention the influences because, frankly, they don't know what they're even talking about.

The only parallel I can draw (since I'm not scientist) is from forecast figures. Raw forecasts for consumer marketing do not take into account seasonal purchasing activity which has a huge affect on the accuracy of said forecasts. Why should you care about a raw forecast once you've calculated the seasonal one?

Lack of diligence in keeping historical data archives is inconsequential to me. They kept around what's important and what has meaning. You buy a product, you throw away the box. People are getting angry at them for not keeping the box, basically.

 

By the way, I'm not going to be baited into arguing this any more. Some people think that nitpicky little things like this "turn AGW on its head." I don't think they do. The science is still sound, to me, and that's that. You can continue to say it isn't because of mistakes or one unscruptulous email or one small cooling period during a century of accelerating warming, but I won't go there.

No amount of arguing will shift my view or your view.

 

Oh yeah? Why's that?

 

George bush was elected twice. Whats your point??

 

More like a bunk bluster.

People who have so much as a modicum of intellectual honesty won't discuss this with you since you basically said you won't listen to scientists in favor of your gut feelings on this issue. It isn't worth anyone's time.

The science is still there and hasn't been refuted. The only thing that has happened is that the right-wing noise machine has something they think they can make noise about WRT AGW. They're wrong, but we already knew that.

 

I posted my sentiments on this issue, including the "belt buster," in the appropriate thread on the topic. Ottomaton has already posted the most important review of the issue in any case.

I beg everyone's patience as I work to blow the LID off of the deforestation "issue."

 

Not sure how laziness and understanding go together, but.....oooookay.

Tell you what, you toe your line and I'll toe mine. Time will tell.

Have a nice day

 

Really? That sounds like it may be the core of the issue. Perhaps you should contemplate the relationship for a while. Understanding requires effort. There is a reason you have to go to school and study for four years to get a degree. There is a reason you need to spend a whole lot more effort and time to earn a PhD.

Knowledge doesn't manifestly reveal itself to the lazy. It seems to me that your fundimental position - that you can look at something for a couple of seconds and see a 'truth' that people spend decades of their life trying to understand - requires no small measure of hubris on your part.

 

You have to put forth effort to understand another side's point of view.

Sadly, too many people don't do that (are too "lazy" to).

 

Oh my gosh people...... ( I knew I was asking for trouble when I said lazy )

I meant too lazy to go through hundreds of articles ( that I have already read ) and post quotes and links.

Really, I'm not that stupid....... :grin:

 

Tell ya what Ottie,

It doesn't take a PhD to read through all of the material on Climategate to know that something is a little fishy.

 

Agreed. They were stonewalling because of having to deal with a nonstop stream of anklebiters claiming that nuance in the data "disproved" AGW. It was a completely understandable reaction from my point of view, but nevertheless wrong. It is important to respond to fools and charlatans, rather than try and ignore them. They need to learn from it, and go forward.

[rquoter]

In fact, the whole reason the CRU seems to have been hacked is that the Unit was fighting off requests for access to the data sets it used to put together its climate models. This is one of the issues that gets discussed in the e-mails. Basically, some of the CRU researchers didn't want to release the data to people who weren't trained scientists because they were tired of spending their time fighting with bloggers and wanted to focus on research. Which is great, except for two things: First, from what I'm reading it looks like there might have been some ethical lapses in how the researchers went about blocking the release of data; Second, when you block the release of data, no matter what your real reason is, people will assume it's because you're hiding something nefarious. One of the positive outcomes of this whole hacking debacle is that it's forcing some discussion about when circling the wagons becomes protectionism, and might lead to the climate change data sets becoming more open source. Frankly, I think that's a good thing.

[/rquoter]

 

It's curious that you chose to cut off your piece when you did. Here's another paragraph in the same story...

Also, this is weather station data... much, if not all of the raw data is still available from the source or data repositories. For instance, if you want Russian weather station data you can get it from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Here's the abstract:

At NCAR, you can also find similar info for US stations, ocean buoy data, etc.

So, I'm betting you could reconstruct the raw data dataset that was thrown away... which was, in the eyes of those folks in the 1980's, redundant data of no intrinsic value.

 

I have been backing away for a while, and let me say, unless sincere people ask me sincere questions, I'm done with any serious input in these here troll infested waters. Not very interesting.

Back to the de-fraud-estation. Ho ho ho!

 

Here is Dr. Jeff Masters input on this whole controversy. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389#commenttop

Interesting to note that one of his previous blog entries showed October as the 6th warmest Otober since 1880.

It's odd how the US is quite cool atm while most of the rest of world is quite warm. Australia in fact has been absolutely baking and there has been quite a bit of typhoon activity in the Western Pacific this season including the current Typhoon Nida which was at one point the strongest typhoon in a decade.

 

I use to think that global warming was not man made - ask Ottoman.

I did my own investigation and reading of the data - and the key points was that global warming models that were man-made correctly predicted that most of the warming would happen at night (which is indeed the case) and that it would occur in certain layers of the atmosphere (not the surface mind you).

This has also proven out correctly.

Sound science is based upon whether or not certain irregularities can be predicted - certain effects, etc. That has happened, and leads to a lot of credibility that GW is indeed caused by man.

I however, think there are more pressing issues to address for this planet right now, and the best strategy for GW is to learn to live with it, rather than the impossible task of trying to reverse it - at least for now.