|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 21, 2009 0:20:10 GMT
Science is Knowledge - Anyone who hides knowledge (data, results, methods) ISN'T a Scientist. QED.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 0:25:21 GMT
That conspiracy theory won't wash anymore either now that the emails are out in public. We can see that noone was hiding knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 21, 2009 0:33:51 GMT
That conspiracy theory won't wash anymore either now that the emails are out in public. We can see that noone was hiding knowledge. Why all the resistance to FOI requests socold? What's your spin on that? Also, if you're going to post the emails, at least post the person who wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 21, 2009 0:35:13 GMT
That conspiracy theory won't wash anymore either now that the emails are out in public. We can see that noone was hiding knowledge. ? We obviously disagree on what the following words actually mean: a. Hiding b. Knowledge! and possibly: c. Public. I referred to no conspiracy theory. I only made a true statement. If the shoe fits.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2009 0:38:11 GMT
Paid political propagandists posing as scientists. Just keep the grants coming and we "scientists" will write some pretty propaganda. Emails contain information on how to obfuscate issues or trick up data. Bunker mentality.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 0:41:42 GMT
That conspiracy theory won't wash anymore either now that the emails are out in public. We can see that noone was hiding knowledge. Why all the resistance to FOI requests socold? What's your spin on that? A number of FOI requests were responded to, one of the earliest I see was from back in 2007. What the emails also make clear is that it slowly dawned on the scientists that FOI requests were being made for more and more stuff and it would just never end. It also became apparent to the scientists that the data was being used to find minor errors and spin them into big news stories that often came back as false allegations of fraud against the scientists. So I ask you - why would anyone want to respond to such an FOI requester if they knew the requester was just going to spin big news out of any little pointless errors they came across and end up causing false fraud allegations to be made against the scientist? I thought you said you had read the emails? Anyway I've already explained the nature of why FOI requests might be ignored on this very board. These emails have simply vindicated by prior judgement on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 0:42:36 GMT
That conspiracy theory won't wash anymore either now that the emails are out in public. We can see that noone was hiding knowledge. ? We obviously disagree on what the following words actually mean: a. Hiding b. Knowledge! and possibly: c. Public. I referred to no conspiracy theory. I only made a true statement. If the shoe fits. Have you read any of the emails (in full)?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 0:43:13 GMT
Paid political propagandists posing as scientists. Just keep the grants coming and we "scientists" will write some pretty propaganda. Emails contain information on how to obfuscate issues or trick up data. Bunker mentality. BS - read the emails.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 0:45:34 GMT
1226451442 is required reading for understanding FOI "time wasters"
1233326033 is required reading for understanding the "harassers"
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 21, 2009 1:03:32 GMT
1226451442 is required reading for understanding FOI "time wasters" 1233326033 is required reading for understanding the "harassers" Quick question: One has an idea.....it is a greattttt idea. You are being paid with public funds...so the basis of said idea is actually public domain. You receive a FOIR....you gladly give the data as it isn't proprietery data.....it is owned by the public. The person asking for the information sees flaws in the methodology of the data and corrects you. MMMMMM.......you have a choice. You can be happy that someone has taken the time to correct you...or you can resist...even tho you know the correction is valid. Now....what in REAL life makes the most sense? Just like Briffa's papers.....they really are total junk.....junk........yoiu can't call them science as they are so fatally flawed. Back to option one....you are open to correction....admit the flaw and move on to bigger and better things. OR else you try to perpetuate the lie....and in doing so...get totally caught. CPU has been totally caught. You can spin the e-mails as you wish...good or bad......but the perponderance of evidence at this point is not in favor or CPU being a neutral assesor of climate in any way shape or form.
|
|
|
Post by granpisco on Nov 21, 2009 1:08:27 GMT
Today at 7:25pm, socold wrote: That conspiracy theory won't wash anymore either now that the emails are out in public. We can see that none was hiding knowledge.
socold, you're prosecuting this case from a very weak position. The ocean is rapidly receding from the beach you're standing on. Run for higher ground NOW; a giant tsunami is on the way!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 21, 2009 1:13:14 GMT
Why all the resistance to FOI requests socold? What's your spin on that? A number of FOI requests were responded to, one of the earliest I see was from back in 2007. What the emails also make clear is that it slowly dawned on the scientists that FOI requests were being made for more and more stuff and it would just never end. It also became apparent to the scientists that the data was being used to find minor errors and spin them into big news stories that often came back as false allegations of fraud against the scientists. So I ask you - why would anyone want to respond to such an FOI requester if they knew the requester was just going to spin big news out of any little pointless errors they came across and end up causing false fraud allegations to be made against the scientist? I thought you said you had read the emails? Anyway I've already explained the nature of why FOI requests might be ignored on this very board. These emails have simply vindicated by prior judgement on the matter. That is a load of crap and you know it. Briffa wouldn't release the data for anybody, and never would have except RMS gave him an ultimatum, which is also referenced in the emails. Replication is part and parcel to testing a hypothesis. The problem is, none of these hucksters want anyone to look at their work, they say "trust us". Jones "loses" the data, but then there's an email for that as well where he states he'd rather trash it all than give it up. Hmm, a cozy coincidence. So I ask you - why would anyone want to respond to such an FOI requester if they knew the requester was just going to spin big news out of any little pointless errors they came across and end up causing false fraud allegations to be made against the scientist? Steve M will not even allow the word to be used on his blog, and snips posts the infer it. Nice try socold. A number of FOI requests were responded to, one of the earliest I see was from back in 2007. Name them and when they were filed. Anyway I've already explained the nature of why FOI requests might be ignored on this very board. These emails have simply vindicated by prior judgement on the matter. It is a matter of law, not what may be inconvenient to the scientist. The journals they publish in also require data to be freely available, but they didn't enforce their own RULES for publication. Nice try again. .......spin them into big news stories that often came back as false allegations of fraud against the scientists. Itemize them. Your hands are waiving at the speed of a fly's wings.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 21, 2009 1:18:17 GMT
socold Yes I have read some of the emails. You defend so strongly, are you paid as well? I cannot believe that you have ever been in a physics lab or chem lab or even worked in a wood shop where your actions and word have consequences. In my world technical work is not done by agenda. Facts count and must be right or else things will not work. Fiddling the historic record is just that fiddling. To be paid to fiddle with broad consequences is immoral. Maybe you think that is all OK, I do not.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 21, 2009 1:18:45 GMT
Have you read any of the emails (in full)? Socold, are you trying entrapment? I'll not admit to reading the emails. There is already a clear threat to prosecute all who access this information! www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emailsProfessor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 21, 2009 1:26:08 GMT
1226451442 is required reading for understanding FOI "time wasters" 1233326033 is required reading for understanding the "harassers" Quick question: One has an idea.....it is a greattttt idea. You are being paid with public funds...so the basis of said idea is actually public domain. You receive a FOIR....you gladly give the data as it isn't proprietery data.....it is owned by the public. The person asking for the information sees flaws in the methodology of the data and corrects you. MMMMMM.......you have a choice. You can be happy that someone has taken the time to correct you...or you can resist...even tho you know the correction is valid. Now....what in REAL life makes the most sense? How about this hypothetical situation instead: For political reasons a group of the public are demanding scientific data so that they can find minor errors that make no difference to the analysis and then spin those errors convincing themselves that the scientists are frauds. Is it good for science to keep giving those people data? Is it worth the huge amount of time necessary to pander to their requests? Or is it just better that scientists ignore them and get on with their hard work? I choose the latter. I disagree and I note there is no published paper outlining arguments against Briffa's papers anyway, so you have an empty gun there. The emails show that scientists react to published arguments, not blog posts. So CA would get a response if they did publish arguments. Why don't they do that? If it was about science they would publish. One reason why you might avoid publishing is because you are dealing in politics, not science. The preponderance of evidence (or rather emails) is heavily in favor of science and against blog smears. Unfortunately i suspect most skeptics, including you, are not even reading the emails. I let the CRU error drop (it's UEA not CRU), but now you are calling it CPU...
|
|