RoR: Forum

As for the deleted raw data... did you bother reading /when/ the data was deleted, by who, and under what circumstances?

Why isn't Robert T. a member here?? He wrote something about this, which was posted here by someone. Anyone remember that?

Daniel,

If I remember correctly, there are come conflicting statements and issues regarding this claim. Very serious conflicts. CRU claims data was deleted at one point, but released some of it at another later point. CRU's claims aren't the end of the story.

Post 21

Friday, December 11, 2009 - 8:00pm

Wrong author, right story:

Global Warming Ate My Data (August 09)

"The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".

"Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands."

(More like accidently on purpose. This is the exact same way the emails were released. Someone on the inside of CRU is leaking stuff to the outside.)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 12/11, 8:04pm)

Post 22

Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 3:04am

Mr. Boese,

Historical DATA used in an ongoing study with significant international implications... is not "old newspapers". That is rather disingenuous of you to suggest... And it IS cheap and easy to store.

It is notable that four out of the four links of yours that I reviewed all had the 'George Soros haha' quote, and none of the four did anything but impugn the intelligence anyone questioning the facts. The 'it's nothing, you just don't understand' defense is an insulting defense - particularly when it offers so little real explanation of in support of the science that is really at question.

It might be quite interesting to know also how many of those scientists involved in climate research, but not financed by political interests, actually accept the data or the conclusions. I've read several scientific articles by respected, established scientists over the past few years that cite other facts and highly question both.

You know... the thing about sausage and (unfortunately) laws is that they are all typically spiced to the tastes of their butcher.

jt

PS: Try this link - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 12/12, 3:08am)

Post 23

Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 7:24am

Well, as it appears that nobody here is willing to even consider changing their minds on the issue, then, given my own limited rhetorical abilities, there seems little point to me posting again to this thread where there's so much /more/ I could be reading and writing about... such as, say, learning more about when it /is/ objectively rational to change one's mind about a current belief. ( http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes seems to be a good introduction point to Bayes' Theorem.)

No, I'm not saying 'goodbye' to the whole Forum here; I simply prefer to only post when I feel I have something useful to contribute, and since my posts to this particular thread don't seem to be doing any good, am trying to maximize my return-per-investment-of-attention.

Post 24

Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 10:57am

There is more than one way to maximize your return from this thread. Such as learning from what we posted in reply to your messages. Your last post presumed that you are right and we are close-minded; and yet, strangely enough, that is what you have accused us of doing.

With such a complex, data-intensive issue as global warming, it is better to pick out one single fact and present evidence for or against a premise based upon that single fact. That way there might actually be some resolution.

Post 25

Saturday, December 12, 2009 - 11:13am

Daniel,

So, taking one step back, here's a new question: what, if anything, would it take for you to change your current opinion on AGW?

Here's a start:

1) data showing the "greenhouse effect" (temperature increases up at 8 kilometers altitude exceeding those found near or on the surface of the earth)
2) data incorporating the actual (read: predominant) contribution of the sun
3) data incorporating the changes in the major greenhouse gas: water vapor

Related link.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/12, 11:24am)

Post 26

Monday, December 14, 2009 - 11:28am

Ed:

Re: what, if anything, would it take for you to change your current opinion on AGW?

On Saturday, when they show up selling 'Awake' and 'The WatchTower', do you ever get the distinct impression they are reading verbatim from a script?

Post 27

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 5:50pm

Fred,

Yes, yes I have thought that. That the "Overseer" came around with the script, that he (it's always a "he") that he passed it out to the "Elders" and that they, obediently, trained the "Pioneers."

It's sort of like being a Jesuit, but without the concentration or mental discipline required.

Ed
[and yes, it had crossed my mind that our "Daniel" might, either knowingly or not, be in the service of some kind of a "Nebuchadnezzar"]

Post 28

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 3:01pm

Came across this link. Appears the Russians have now challenged the CRU for not including all the data from their weather stations. They indicate the CRU selected only about 25% of the stations, favoring the ones near urban centers where warming would be most pronounced. Among those stations used, many had incomplete data, while complete data was available from most of the other 75% of their stations.

jt

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Post 29

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 3:44pm