Climategate?

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

here again we have a 'Consensus' amongst theInteligence/FinancialClimate Experts being shown up as a tissue of lies manipulated to say whatever they want to say…

I think that’s an ever-so-slight overstatement.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

there seem to be a raft of vested interests decrying the leaks and trying to convince us that there is nothing untowards going on, I have yet to read anything from DJPbarry on this thread or a few more of the ones I read that actually give a straight answer without either spinning it back with some obscure little detail of flatly dismissing it as 'we dont know all the details'

Yeah, you’re right. We should all just believe everything we see and hear on the internet without question.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

HEY we dont know much about the changes in the earths climate either, dosent stop a lot of ye claimin to be experts

Who has claimed to be an expert on the subject? I’m no different to anyone else on this forum. Everyone has access to the same information. But it seems to me that many who question (or deny the evidence supporting) the AGW theory will dismiss all (or much of) the supporting evidence as “pseudo-science” or some such, while holding aloft one or two dissenting voices as “the truth”. I’m reminded of a quote from Bertrand Russell:

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

Mahatma coat wrote: »

'The hackers broke the law and we shouldnt take their word that this its the truth'

I suppose ye would have thrown Woodward and Bernstein in Jail too for their despicable act of publishing Leaked documentation, and spreading lies about nice mr Nixon.

Oh don’t worry – if the hackers have uncovered wrongdoing, they will surely be remembered by the blogging community as heroes.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Also we have a fairly good Idea of where and how many Vineyards were in Medieval england, the Domesday book lists 46, subsequent census show a decline to 9 by the 19th century

I’d hardly call that “a fairly good idea” by modern standards. Do we also have a “fairly good” temperature record for the same period?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that they were forced to write a "minority report" speaks volumes, i.e. they were unable to get their points across in the main report.

You’re assuming they had a point worth making? What evidence was used to support their points? Carter refers to the “scientist” Dr. Dennis Jensen. Is Dr. Jensen a climatologist? Because Carter seems to place an awful lot of stock in his opinion.

And again, how does this lend weight to the argument that the peer-review process is biased?

Mahatma coat

ah but as ya said yerself its notabout temprature so we do have reasonably decent records of the WEATHER kept by monks through annals ans the like, so wasnt the whole point o the scientific endeavour to figure out those trends, but now we find that when the evidence dosent suit the theory its ignored and hidden and lies are spread instead to make te politial point

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re assuming they had a point worth making? What evidence was used to support their points? Carter refers to the “scientist” Dr. Dennis Jensen. Is Dr. Jensen a climatologist? Because Carter seems to place an awful lot of stock in his opinion.

Those who watched the whole youtube video can draw their own conclusions.

From Wikipedia

Dr Dennis Jensen (born 28 February 1962 in South Africa), Australian politician, was elected to the Australian House of Representatives at the 9 October 2004 federal election for the Division of Tangney, Western Australia, for the Liberal Party. He was educated at RMIT University, Melbourne University and Monash University, from where he has a PhD in materials engineering on ceramics. He was a research scientist with the CSIRO and a defence analyst before entering politics. He was the Liberal candidate for the Division of Corio, Victoria at the 1998 election.

No, he is not a climatologist, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about either.
Attacking the man and not the science is precisely the tactics employed against sceptics by AGW supporters.

djpbarry wrote: »

And again, how does this lend weight to the argument that the peer-review process is biased?

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ah but as ya said yerself its notabout temprature so we do have reasonably decent records of the WEATHER kept by monks through annals ans the like, so wasnt the whole point o the scientific endeavour to figure out those trends, but now we find that when the evidence dosent suit the theory its ignored and hidden and lies are spread instead to make te politial point

Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. First of all, historical records have obviously been considered by scientists when attempting to construct climatological records. However, these records tend to be specific to one country or region, usually in Europe. Evidence for a warm period in one particular region does not imply a global warm period. As for the particular argument that wine production in England is a reliable indicator of climate… Well, if it is, then that implies that wine production is a good indicator of climate everywhere. So by that logic, California did not have a particularly suitable climate for wine production prior to the mid-20th century. The point is, there are a wide variety of socio-economic factors that will influence the production of any commodity.

However, even if we were to consider the extent of wine production as a reliable proxy indicator, there are now about ten times as many vineyards in England as were noted in the Domesday book – does that mean that the English climate is now ten times more suited to wine production than it was in 1087?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

No, he is not a climatologist, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about either.
Attacking the man and not the science is precisely the tactics employed against sceptics by AGW supporters.

I’m not attacking anyone. I’m merely asking who this guy is, because Carter seems to be putting a tremendous amount of emphasis on this minority report, purely on the basis that it was co-authored by a scientist. But a single scientist’s opinion does not a theory disprove.

Deleted User wrote: »

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

I’m sorry, I must have missed it?

ConsiderThis

The reason this is so important is that this particular group of scientists is responsible for much of the temperature records hitherto relied upon by the IPCC.

That they appear, according to some of the emails, to have altered the records in such a way to have made their case, and then to have used those altered records to use to predict future warming, seems to cast doubt on their honesty and reliability.

It appears that the "trick" was to reduce historic temperatures, and increase recent temperatures. The effect of this was to change pretty much flat temperatures into graphs showing warming.

Additionally, when anyone outside the circle wanted to research, they appear to conspire to deny anyone else access to the data, even where it appeared that they were breaching the criminal law in so doing.

If these emails are true (and it seems that after a week we have not had a denial from those involved) then this must be worrying to anyone who is interested in truth and scientific truth.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

The reason this is so important is that this particular group of scientists is responsible for much of the temperature records hitherto relied upon by the IPCC.

And if theirs was the only instrumental record, then we might have a serious problem.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

It appears that the "trick" was to reduce historic temperatures, and increase recent temperatures.

Based on?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

...it seems that after a week we have not had a denial from those involved...

A denial of what? Has a specific accusation been made?

enfant terrible

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s quite a list of accusations you’re making there. Care to substantiate them with something?
Has it been established that someone is lying?

I'll peer review his data for you, i'm totally unbiased like the climate change scientists

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

And if theirs was the only instrumental record, then we might have a serious problem.
Based on?
A denial of what? Has a specific accusation been made?

based on their emails..... please review this thread for further details!!!!!

the emails suggested that they altered figures to suit there needs....
are you deliberately being naive or trolling

asdasd

The Hadley centre is not the only record, and we have satellite data which also shows warming. This is seperate from the claim that there has been little warming since 1998( which I believe).

I have always been a sceptic of full on alarmism, and dubious about the Hadley centre ( because of their lack of transparancy with the data). But even if they fallisfied stuff, unless there was a grand global conspiracy then other datasets show the same thing.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

the emails suggested that they altered figures to suit there needs....

Do they? So what about all the other researchers who have reached similar conclusions?

robtri wrote: »

are you deliberately being naive or trolling

Less of that please.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Do they? So what about all the other researchers who have reached similar conclusions?
Less of that please.

We are not discussing all other researchers, we are discussing the researchers from whom the emails originated from.
i.e. what this thread was set up to discuss...

Macha

robtri wrote: »

We are not discussing all other researchers, we are discussing the researchers from whom the emails originated from.
i.e. what this thread was set up to discuss...

There have been attempts in this thread to questionthe validity of the science on anthropogenic climate change by referring only to the researchers in question and ignoring the vast wealth of research coming from other sources.

It is entirely relevant to discuss other researchers and your attempt to narrow the discussion down to what suits your (pre-determined) opinion speaks volumes of your attitude towards the nature of scientific research, ironically enough.

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

There have been attempts in this thread to questionthe validity of the science on anthropogenic climate change by referring only to the researchers in question and ignoring the vast wealth of research coming from other sources.

It is entirely relevant to discuss other researchers and your attempt to narrow the discussion down to what suits your (pre-determined) opinion speaks volumes of your attitude towards the nature of scientific research, ironically enough.

well the topic here as per the OP, is about the emails from these researchers... sorry I was just trying to stay on topic....

PS you have no idea what my pre-determined opinion is, I haven't expressed it.

diverdriver

There have been attempts in this thread to questionthe validity of the science on anthropogenic climate change by referring only to the researchers in question and ignoring the vast wealth of research coming from other sources.

The CRU was one of the most respected among the climate change community. Now as each day goes by and each email is perused their credibility is more and more questioned. Even George Montbiot found it neccessary to apologise for them.

Naturally this of course throws casts doubt into all research of this nature particularly as it has become increasingly clear that data has been manipulated to get the desired result. An isolated case?

In a previous thread where I slated by a now moderator in this forum for suggesting that scientists being human might want to skew data to achieve a predetermined result and might alter anomalous results to restore the 'correct' result. It seems I was proved right, scientists are human after all.

Our mods are fighting a spirited rearguard. But I would ask. Have you taken the time to check out the emails yourselves?

Macha

robtri wrote: »

well the topic here as per the OP, is about the emails from these researchers... sorry I was just trying to stay on topic....

There is no need to apologise.

robtri wrote: »

PS you have no idea what my pre-determined opinion is, I haven't expressed it.

On the contrary, you have repeatedly questioned the science behind AGW in this forum.

diverdriver wrote: »

Naturally this of course throws casts doubt into all research of this nature particularly as it has become increasingly clear that data has been manipulated to get the desired result. An isolated case?

Here is where the leap of faith happens. One unit is compromised and therefore the credibility of all research units is called into question?

diverdriver wrote: »

Our mods are fighting a spirited rearguard. But I would ask. Have you taken the time to check out the emails yourselves?

Do you think that as a scientist I would attempt to discuss a topic that I haven't read up on?

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

On the contrary, you have repeatedly questioned the science behind AGW in this forum.

Questioning the science isn't an expression of how I feel on the subject of AGW..... two complete and seperate items.

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

Do you think that as a scientist I would attempt to discuss a topic that I haven't read up on?

well do you believe that this batch of scientists have manipulated the data???

robtri

robtri wrote: »

well do you believe that this batch of scientists have manipulated the data???

Personally I don't, but I do believe that they have been "cherry picking" the raw data to facilitate their claims, which is in essance what the climategate emails allude to.

Macha

robtri wrote: »

Questioning the science isn't an expression of how I feel on the subject of AGW..... two complete and seperate items.

I'm not quite sure how you can separate your questioning of the science (including calling yourself "anything but a global warming believer") and your feelings of AGW. In fact, I would be astonished to see how you separate out the two.

robtri wrote: »

well do you believe that this batch of scientists have manipulated the data???

A lot of phrases have been taken out of context or misinterpreted, eg the reference to the "trick".

But I think they failed to follow a lot of basic scientific ground rules like transparency, integrity and ethics. I cannot find a lot of evidence of data manipulation but I do see attempts to cover up the work of climate sceptics.

Unfortunately for climate sceptics, there is solid data coming from NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the US that is perfectly credible.

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

A lot of phrases have been taken out of context or misinterpreted, eg the reference to the "trick".

But I think they failed to follow a lot of basic scientific ground rules like transparency, integrity and ethics. I cannot find a lot of evidence of data manipulation but I do see attempts to cover up the work of climate sceptics.

Unfortunately for climate sceptics, there is solid data coming from NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the US that is perfectly credible.

That I can agree with 100%.....
the emails overall are a bit damning but taking phrases here and there out of an email or memo is very selective and easy to take out of context....


just a question, does Nasa or the national Climate centre give information on the climate during the middle ages ??

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

We are not discussing all other researchers...

Indirectly, we are. The accusation has been made that this particular group of researchers has been guilty of manipulating data to achieve a desired result. But similar results have been independently attained by other research groups, so dismissing IPCC reports on the basis of this ‘leak’ is a touch premature in my opinion. The work conducted by this one group of scientists is not nearly as fundamental to the AGW theory as some like to think.

diverdriver

Here is where the leap of faith happens. One unit is compromised and therefore the credibility of all research units is called into question?

Frankly yes, given the status of the particular unit. Particularly with it's relationship to the IPCC and to all the other units. They weren't working alone in a cave. The scientific community, particularly in this sphere, cooperate extensively. Anything flowing from them must now appear suspect.

In any case, many prominent and respected skeptics have been casting doubts on many aspects of theory from all sources not just the CRU. Are we willing to assume that all of the are squeaky clean?

As it happens, I don't this will stop the AGW bandwagon from rolling on. It's too entrenched for that. Entrenched being the word. But I do think it's a crack in the edifice. Time will tell.

djpbarry

diverdriver wrote: »

Frankly yes, given the status of the particular unit.

Even given the fact that we’ve yet to establish the ‘status’ of this particular unit?

diverdriver wrote: »

The scientific community, particularly in this sphere, cooperate extensively.

I can’t speak for ‘this sphere’, but in my experience of scientific research, nothing could be further from the truth. Research projects are so specialised that they are generally confined to handful of people. Collaborative projects, while more common these days due to advances in telecommunications (specifically, the internet, email, etc.), are still rare, mainly for logistical reasons.

diverdriver wrote: »

In any case, many prominent and respected skeptics have been casting doubts on many aspects of theory from all sources not just the CRU.

Show me the sceptics’ associated publications, then we’ll talk.

diverdriver

Show me the sceptics’ associated publications, then we’ll talk.

Oh dear, that is always your tactic. Quite honestly if you need me to direct you to more skeptical publications well......

Whatever your experience in science it is abundantly clear that there is considerable sharing going on in the climate change camp. We're not talking about someone somewhere working on a new process or theory in splendid isolation. This is a huge topic with considerable cross pollination as you well know.

As for the status of the unit concerned. Well they describe themselves as

Widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

I don't think many disagree with the humble assessment of themselves.:rolleyes:

simplistic

The reasons , the lies , the results and all the other facts about man made global warming all neatly summed up here:

Hmmm, The original news report about climategate is already fish-n-chip wrappings!
The media appears to have forgotten all about it, or are simply seeing it as a non-event.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

But similar results have been independently attained by other research groups, so dismissing IPCC reports on the basis of this ‘leak’ is a touch premature in my opinion. The work conducted by this one group of scientists is not nearly as fundamental to the AGW theory as some like to think.

Similar results have been found by, for example, the NIWa, in New Zealand, who are the NZ Governments chief advisors.

Curiously, their results seem to be at odds with the raw data, as shown here; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

taconnol wrote: »

There have been attempts in this thread to question the validity of the science on anthropogenic climate change by referring only to the researchers in question and ignoring the vast wealth of research coming from other sources. It is entirely relevant to discuss other researchers and your attempt to narrow the discussion down to what suits your (pre-determined) opinion speaks volumes of your attitude towards the nature of scientific research, ironically enough.

Thats a bit pejorative. The IPCC uses just 4 sources to educate itself on temperature, and the group on which the IPCC relys most heavily is the one which is the subject of this thread. These guys are not just one of many hundreds giving evidence to the IPCC, these guys are the most important group , of only 4, on whom the IPCC has relied to date.

Most right thinking people will conclude that, if it's true that they have altered the records to agree with their hyopthesis, and have colluded to avoid the real records from being examined, than that is more than a disgrace, and it calls on their credibility.

Painful as that might be for some to understand, on any objective criteria it is inexcusable and indefensible.

Macha

simplistic wrote: »

The reasons , the lies , the results and all the other facts about man made global warming all neatly summed up here

simplistic, please note the following part of this forum's charter:

Posting a link to a video (or anything else for that matter) does not constitute discussion. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it.

Please provide a summary and arguments of the video.

djpbarry

diverdriver wrote: »

Oh dear, that is always your tactic.

Yes, I do have rather high standards when it comes to scientific evidence; I will no more trust a blog entry on climate change than I will a Wikipedia entry on a medical condition.

diverdriver wrote: »

Whatever your experience in science it is abundantly clear that there is considerable sharing going on in the climate change camp.

Define “sharing”.

asdasd

I will no more trust a blog entry on climate change than I will a Wikipedia entry on a medical condition.

is that not the argument to authority in disguise. if the log writer is a scientist, and if he has access to the data - which seemed to be the case with WattsUpWithThat - then the piece would have to attacked on what it says, how is says it, how it uses the data, and not where it comes from.

djpbarry

asdasd wrote: »

is that not the argument to authority in disguise. if the log writer is a scientist, and if he has access to the data - which seemed to be the case with WattsUpWithThat - then the piece would have to attacked on what it says, how is says it, how it uses the data, and not where it comes from.

I think I phrased that poorly – I was referring to taking things at ‘face value’, an awful lot of which takes place in the formation of arguments against global warming. But I would agree with what you’re saying – there’s no reason why a blog entry or Wikipedia article cannot contain a legitimate scientific argument. The same goes for a post on these boards. However, in my experience, having consulted many a blog in my discussions on this forum over the last number of years, most do not contain properly constructed arguments or well-referenced material, hence my reluctance to accept their content.

On the subject of authority – we all have to bow to it at some point. We can’t all be experts at everything. There inevitably comes a point in one’s research into any topic when a line has to be drawn and certain findings have to be accepted – it’s impossible to scrutinise everything in detail. However, different people set the bar at different heights. For me, I draw the line at peer-reviewed literature – if something has been accepted by experts in a certain field, that’s good enough for me.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

On the subject of authority – we all have to bow to it at some point. We can’t all be experts at everything. There inevitably comes a point in one’s research into any topic when a line has to be drawn and certain findings have to be accepted – it’s impossible to scrutinise everything in detail. However, different people set the bar at different heights. For me, I draw the line at peer-reviewed literature – if something has been accepted by experts in a certain field, that’s good enough for me.

Surely this calls then into question certain peer reviewed literature.....
if the literature of these scientitsts has been peer reviewed and accepted and it comes to light afterwards, such as referred to in these emails, that important data has been altered to fit the desired results.. then peer review has failed and cannot be accepted as true in this case......

it doesn't matter if the final result agrees with other results, peer review has still failed in detecting the falisifed data here...

robtri

robtri wrote: »

Surely this calls then into question certain peer reviewed literature.....
if the literature of these scientitsts has been peer reviewed and accepted and it comes to light afterwards, such as referred to in these emails, that important data has been altered to fit the desired results.. then peer review has failed and cannot be accepted as true in this case......

it doesn't matter if the final result agrees with other results, peer review has still failed in detecting the falisifed data here...

It does appear that the reviewees did not check the results or had the same (allegedly doctored) data or did not run independant analsys of the source data against the computer models.

Or did they and their results were "crowded out" as inconvenient!

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, I do have rather high standards when it comes to scientific evidence; I will no more trust a blog entry on climate change than I will a Wikipedia entry on a medical condition.
Define “sharing”.

I agree regarding wikiepedia, and its not a reference source upon which anyone can rely.

I'm surprised that your position appears to be that you still want to take the "evidence" produced by Prof Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit at face value, even though there appear to be questions to be answered about whether or not the evidence has been manipulated and distorted.

We should all have high standards, and if there is one lesson to be learnt from this situation, it is that we have to be more sceptical about believing what we are told, without examining the underlying evidence. Scientists are human, too, and have all the vanities of humans which make some of them love the limelight, and we must not automatically believe them without evidence. We might be forgiven for assuming that scientists are all scrupulous about standards and are all seeking the truth, but in fact some scientists are attracted by the bright lights of fame and fortune and personal vanity, and so we all have to be on our guard.

Let's hope that's something we can all agree upon.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

it doesn't matter if the final result agrees with other results, peer review has still failed in detecting the falisifed data here...

We’re still a long way from demonstrating conclusively that anything has been falsified.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I'm surprised that your position appears to be that you still want to take the "evidence" produced by Prof Phil Jones and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit at face value, even though there appear to be questions to be answered about whether or not the evidence has been manipulated and distorted.

Questions such as what? If something untoward had taken place, I would expect to see far clearer evidence of it in a large collection of personal emails. But there’s no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no allusion to a hoax, no blatant admission of falsifying data. All we have is a few cherry-picked, out-of-context phrases, such as “hide the decline”, which everyone has assumed to mean something terribly nefarious without actually putting their finger on anything in particular.

asdasd

All we have is a few cherry-picked, out-of-context phrases, such as “hide the decline”, which everyone has assumed to mean something terribly nefarious without actually putting their finger on anything in particular.

Is this faith or BELIEF.

We know what they were talking about, and it is clear in the code also released.

They hid the decline in temperature since 1960 from tree ring proxies. They moved to temperatures as measured from measuring stations. That is easy to ascertain.

Is it significant?

Of course. Any "hiding the decline" in real science would get you fired.

djpbarry

asdasd wrote: »

They hid the decline in temperature since 1960 from tree ring proxies. They moved to temperatures as measured from measuring stations. That is easy to ascertain.

Is it significant?

Of course. Any "hiding the decline" in real science would get you fired.

My question is where is the “hiding”? The divergence that you refer to has been discussed in the literature for years – it’s hardly a secret.

bonkey

asdasd wrote: »

Is this faith or BELIEF.

Its a falsifiable claim.

We know what they were talking about,

Broadly speaking, yes, we do. The devil, as they say, is in the details...details which are not in the mails, and which can (at best) be guessed at.

Typically, concluding something nefarious involves assuming a nefarious interpretation of the context.....at which point you've assumed your conclusion and certainly don't have a falsifiable claim.

and it is clear in the code also released.

Is it? It might be clear (at a technical level) what the code is doing, but the reasons for it aren't enshrined in code. THey're alluded to in comments, but even then, we need to understand the context of the comment.

They hid the decline in temperature since 1960 from tree ring proxies.

They removed the impact of one already-known, problematic case. If you read around the issue, rather then just concentrating on the words used in the leaked content, you'll quickly find that this isn't anything new. Indeed, it would be more surprising to have found that someone did use this particular data.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm

Scientist in climate change data row steps down

Professor Phil Jones has stepped down as director of the CRU
The research director at the centre of a row over climate change data said he would stand down from the post while there is an independent review.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Norwich-based University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has said he stands by his data.

Sceptics claim the e-mails, leaked after a UEA server was hacked into, showed data was being manipulated.

Climategate's second victim!

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

We’re still a long way from demonstrating conclusively that anything has been falsified.
Questions such as what? If something untoward had taken place, I would expect to see far clearer evidence of it in a large collection of personal emails. But there’s no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no allusion to a hoax, no blatant admission of falsifying data. All we have is a few cherry-picked, out-of-context phrases, such as “hide the decline”, which everyone has assumed to mean something terribly nefarious without actually putting their finger on anything in particular.

We all have to reach our own conclusions based on the evidence in the emails. If, for example, you judge that there is no evidence that the temperature records were altered and falsified, or, for example, that there is no evidence that the raw data was withheld from others who requested to see it, than that's your judgement.

No doubt Prof Jones has stepped down because he has done nothing wrong.

And no doubt those whom, for example, requested information under FOI aand were denied it are also mistaken in their recollection of events and were, in fact, sent the information, as the law required.

Apologies for the slight note of scepticism in my voice. Some consider this to be the scandal of the century, and want to get to the bottom of it and find out the truth of what really happened here and what the emails seem to be suggesting. My position is exactely that , that an independent enquiry should be held to investigate what really happened.

Your judgement appears to be that the emails suggest nothing whatever and, in fact, have no hint of any wrong doing or nefarious practices. Whether or not you welcome an independent investigation seems unsure. Do you welcome an independent investigation to find out, for example, whether professor Jones broke the law by refusing to release the raw temperature records? And , if you do favour an independant investigation, might you at some point consider asking yourself what was his motive in going so far as to break the law to hide the raw temperature data?

I have to say I hate the way these threads sometimes evolve into two sides backing themselves into a corner, and then falling into what De Bono calls the intelligence trap of having to back up their "side" and ignoring anythign which might contradict their "side".

What I'd like to see here is the truth, and see if the temperature records were falsified. If so, it would be great news for us all as that would suggest global warming is not as serious as we may have been previously led to believe, and I'd welcome that.

However, the first step is to establish the facts, and I welcome that.

ConsiderThis

bonkey wrote: »

They removed the impact of one already-known, problematic case. If you read around the issue, rather then just concentrating on the words used in the leaked content, you'll quickly find that this isn't anything new. Indeed, it would be more surprising to have found that someone did use this particular data.

I've read this and reread it and am not sure what it meant to say "they removed the impact of one already-known, problematic case".

Might this refer to the hockey stick graph? Or perhaps the Mediaeval Warm Period? I've no idea.

I have to disagree that no one can find anything new in these emails. Certainly it appears that Prof Jones was prepared to break the law and refuse to release the CRU's raw temperature data, for example.

And the challenge has been made to him that it also suggests that he falsified the temperature records to make it appear that global warming was taking place. Both serious accusations and not inconsequential.

Now it appears he has had to go, which also suggests there is something amiss.

Of course we'll have to wait and see what an independent investigation finds, but to suggest that there is nothing new in the emails, especially when prof Jones appears to have had to leave his post as a result of them, seems an unusual conclusion to reach.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

We’re still a long way from demonstrating conclusively that anything has been falsified.

and we are also a long way off from demostrating that the data wasn't manipulated... therefore till this is independantly reviewed... and all questions answered, their work needs to treated with skepticism.......

The emails indicate wrong doing, manipulating data, which to date has not been denied, therefore it calls into question the Peer review and their work as a whole.

Macha

robtri wrote: »

and we are also a long way off from demostrating that the data wasn't manipulated... therefore till this is independantly reviewed... and all questions answered, their work needs to treated with skepticism.......

The emails indicate wrong doing, manipulating data, which to date has not been denied, therefore it calls into question the Peer review and their work as a whole.

Show the manipulation of data please. There is actually very little evidence of manipulation of data. Scorn for sceptics, yes. But please list out some examples.

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

Show the manipulation of data please. There is actually very little evidence of manipulation of data. Scorn for sceptics, yes. But please list out some examples.

As per my quote "the emails INDICATE wrong doing"
its not an established fact yet......

likewise can you show evidence that there has been no manipulation of data then??

Macha

robtri wrote: »

As per my quote "the emails INDICATE wrong doing"
its not an established fact yet......

And I asked you to explain those "indications" as you see them.

robtri wrote: »

likewise can you show evidence that there has been no manipulation of data then??

A claim has to be made before it can be refuted.

But as an example I have already explained that the reference to a "trick" has been misinterpreted. It refers to leaving out a set of tree-ring growth data that did not reflect accurate temperatures, as recorded by the infinitely more accurate tool, a thermometer.

Other than that, I have not seen any half-reasonable accusations of data manipulation so I'll wait until they are presented.

By the way, I am not claiming that the emails are not damaging. I think they are terribly damaging and strict scientific codes of practice and ethics clearly need to be properly enforced.

robtri

taconnol wrote: »

And I asked you to explain those "indications" as you see them.


A claim has to be made before it can be refuted.

But as an example I have already explained that the reference to a "trick" has been misinterpreted. It refers to leaving out a set of tree-ring growth data that did not reflect accurate temperatures, as recorded by the infinitely more accurate tool, a thermometer.

Other than that, I have not seen any half-reasonable accusations of data manipulation so I'll wait until they are presented.

I am not going to reproduce what has already been put forward in this thread, from the excerts of the emails, you can read them all again if you wish...

if there has been no reasonable accusations of data manipulation, why is the head of the project stepping down till independantley reviewed??? that dooesn't make sense......

Macha

robtri wrote: »

I am not going to reproduce what has already been put forward in this thread, from the excerts of the emails, you can read them all again if you wish...

Just as I expected..

robtri wrote: »

if there has been no reasonable accusations of data manipulation, why is the head of the project stepping down till independantley reviewed??? that dooesn't make sense......

Because of general conduct in relation to how sceptics were treated, transparency and access to data. I'm guessing failure to keep old data records was also a factor. The man repeatedly refused FOI requests for data that were, IMO, justifiable and reasonable.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Do you welcome an independent investigation to find out, for example, whether professor Jones broke the law by refusing to release the raw temperature records?

I have already stated on this thread that if a law has been broken, then the perpetrator should be punished. However, at this point, I do not have access to a sufficient level of information to determeine that any laws have been broken. Therefore, I must assume Prof. Jones to be innocent until proven otherwise. It seems that others have assumed guilt and are seeking evidence of same. You yourself have stated that you’d ‘like to see the truth’ and ‘the first step is to establish the facts’, yet at the same time you are seeking proof that something untoward has not taken place?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

And the challenge has been made to him that it also suggests that he falsified the temperature records to make it appear that global warming was taking place.

Where has this been suggested?