|
Post by trbixler on Dec 31, 2011 15:56:31 GMT
How do you know they were hacked? it's what all the evidence points to Correct me if I am wrong, to date there is no resolution as to how the emails appeared on the Russian server. Further I have seen no evidence only speculation. I am bothered by the lack of responsibility of Universities as with Sandusky and Mann. I am bothered that Public monies have been used for research and the results are hidden. The results are then claimed to be private. The data is claimed to be lost. That is not OK just as it was not OK to be in the shower with a kid.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 31, 2011 18:58:01 GMT
trbixler: You were in the shower with a kid? .........ahem..........I hope you aren't a coach as well.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 1, 2012 0:09:03 GMT
Many times as I have six, all older now. The easy way to clean up was wash in shower then hand to mom for the towel. Somehow I do not think that was Sandusky's intentions. Not sure how the hockey stick will be ever cleaned up. Not sure how YAD06 will continue to be the highlight of Penn State's ethics symposium.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 3, 2012 3:26:14 GMT
A sad state of affairs. How can anyone still believe in AGW. "Evading Mosher’s FOI" "Climategate 2.0 emails contain an interesting backstory on East Anglia’s evasion of Steve Mosher’s request for something as simple as university policies that governed entry into confidentiality agreements. Palmer consulted university specialists, receiving an answer that was adverse to the line that they were taking in their CRUtem refusals. Rather than providing this information to Mosher, Palmer adopted a tactic borrowed straight from Sir Humphrey. He pretended that he didn’t understand the question and asked Mosher for clarification – undoubtedly on the off-chance that Mosher would not return the ball. Palmer’s tactic succeeded. They avoided answering the question. The Climategate 2.0 backstory, especially Jones’ candid answers, make fascinating reading, as it shows that there were indeed compulsory university policies which were related to a term of standard employment contracts – information provided directly to Palmer." climateaudit.org/2011/12/28/evading-moshers-foi/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 3, 2012 14:02:01 GMT
Ethics, what ethics. Mann and YAD06 have been rolled out world wide, here is what they rolled out utter imagination. "Paging Mike Mann – your dendrochronologist will see you now" "“ However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, and the discipline has spilled over way outside of those bounds, to the point of absurdity.”
“What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense — really nothing but imaginative speculation — about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals.”
“…but dendrochronology has persistently rejected walking the hard road, that of understanding the fundamental genetic and environmental factors controlling wood formation. As I see it, the peer review process in dendrochronology must be fundamentally flawed to allow such publications. Physiologist remain to build any real confidence in their ideas of how environmental factors influence tree ring formation, and dendrochronologists therefore are not at all justified in pretending that they do.
The bounds of dendrochronology will be extended, as will confidence in dendrochronological reports, when your group stops pretending that it knows the answers before it has done the needed research. Again, I am troubled by your group that it shows little humility, no genuine desire to discover the truth.”
The writer of this email:
UNB | Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management | Rod Savidge
Areas of expertise
Tree physiology Wood anatomy Plant cell biology" wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/03/paging-mike-mann-your-dendrochronologist-will-see-you-now/#more-54107
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 4, 2012 15:22:58 GMT
There has been so much heating that we must hide it from everyone not on the team. With the effort to hide the data continuing one wonders when they actually do any real manipulations (data chiropractor?). "Dr Phil, Confidential Agent: Re-visited" "In East Anglia’s response to July 2009 FOI requests for alleged confidentiality agreements (here) , CRU stated that, since the 1980s, they had entered into confidentiality agrements that prohibited them from providing station data to third parties, but were unable to “locate” any such agreements noting that they had “moved offices several times during the 1980s”:" climateaudit.org/2012/01/03/dr-phil-confidential-agent-re-visited/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 7, 2012 12:55:59 GMT
Handywork, and this is the standard? Waved around by everyone as fact. "In case you missed it, on CRU's source code: "In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."" " " Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these "alterations" run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g., omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g., estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line). In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 "divergence problem," as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer's comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module "Uses 'corrected' MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures." ... But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."" tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-case-you-missed-it-on-cru-source.html
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 7, 2012 13:01:44 GMT
More " From: GIORGI FILIPPO To: Chapter 10 LAs -- Congbin Fu , GIORGI FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda Mearns , Richard Jones , Hans von Storch , Peter Whetton Subject: On "what to do?" Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 (MET DST) ...First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth. Hat tip: AJ ICTP - Filippo Giorgi Filippo Giorgi obtained a Laurea in Physics from the University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy in 1982 and a Ph.D. from the School of Geophysical Sciences of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA in 1986. From 1986 to 1998 he was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, USA. Since 1998 he is at ICTP, where he is the head of the Earth System Physics (ESP) section. Giorgi is an international expert in climate modeling and climate change research. He authored or co-authored over 200 papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and is included in the list of most highly cited scientists in the geosciences (which places him in the top 0.5% of this category). He has been PI or co-PI of over 25 research grants in Europe and the U.S. From 2002 to 2008 Giorgi was one of the vice chairs of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports to date." tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/don-miss-this-devastating-criticism-of.htmlwattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/#more-54369
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 16, 2012 16:29:00 GMT
Tom Nelson has been reading all of the 2.0 Emails. What he continues to uncover is profound rot in the 'science' of AGW. "The behind the scenes bumbling of the hockey stick" "Email 4990 The triggering issue was the “divergence” problem as raised by Rosanne D’Arrigo, that a spatially and temporally complex difference has arisen between many of the long tree-ring records and the instrumental record more recently than the calibration period in many cases. This has been in the literature for a while, as you know much better than I do, and was not highlighted by Rosanne in her talk, but some committee members jumped on it in questions, and she was not convincing that trees were thermometers when it was warm a millennium ago but are not thermometers when it is warm now. …(I’m happy to go into details as to why the arguments were not convincing, insofar as I captured the arguments, but they were not convincing to me, and looking around the committee room, I don’t think they were convincing to important members of the committee.) …I don’t want to stir up trouble, I don’t want to piss off the tree-ring people yet again, but I do think that the tree-ring workers (and by association, all of us who do climate change) have a serious problem, and have not answered it very well yet. If better answers are out there, I hope that they come out soon." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/16/the-behind-the-scenes-bumbling-of-the-hockey-stick/#more-54804
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 17, 2012 1:05:26 GMT
trbixler: Anyone who has had biology knows that there are multiple factors that affect tree growth.
What I really find perplexing in all of this is that a scientist has had such a poor education that he does not know basic biology. And the really sad thing is that the fellows who wanted to use tree rings for data weren't schooled enough to KNOW that they should check with a plant biologist.
And they think us lay folks without a PHD behind their name are dumb.....sheeesh.
|
|