|
Post by glc on Dec 16, 2009 19:04:34 GMT
Nothing to see here, move along www.torontosun.com/comment/column....967916-sun.htmlWhy does everyone keep getting this wrong. It's causing a lot of confusion and the main point is getting lost. This is from the Toronto Sun link It's worse than those e-mails revealing leading climate scientists did a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures and privately called it a "travesty" they couldn't explain recent cooling. The trick wasn't to "hide the decline in global temperatures". It was to hide the decline (or divergence from observed measurements) in the reconstructions. It is the reconstructions that are the problem. It means they cannot be relied upon to provide a measure of past climate. Too many commentators in the UK have got it wrong and the CRU are having an easy ride.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 16, 2009 21:21:18 GMT
Nothing to see here, move along www.torontosun.com/comment/column....967916-sun.htmlWhy does everyone keep getting this wrong. It's causing a lot of confusion and the main point is getting lost. This is from the Toronto Sun link It's worse than those e-mails revealing leading climate scientists did a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures and privately called it a "travesty" they couldn't explain recent cooling. The trick wasn't to "hide the decline in global temperatures". It was to hide the decline (or divergence from observed measurements) in the reconstructions. It is the reconstructions that are the problem. It means they cannot be relied upon to provide a measure of past climate. Too many commentators in the UK have got it wrong and the CRU are having an easy ride. Because it's a good soundbite. The details don't matter.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 16, 2009 21:24:20 GMT
Nothing to see here, move along www.torontosun.com/comment/column....967916-sun.htmlWhy does everyone keep getting this wrong. It's causing a lot of confusion and the main point is getting lost. This is from the Toronto Sun link It's worse than those e-mails revealing leading climate scientists did a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures and privately called it a "travesty" they couldn't explain recent cooling. The trick wasn't to "hide the decline in global temperatures". It was to hide the decline (or divergence from observed measurements) in the reconstructions. It is the reconstructions that are the problem. It means they cannot be relied upon to provide a measure of past climate. Too many commentators in the UK have got it wrong and the CRU are having an easy ride. Yes a standard obfuscation. For once we agree... The proxy tree ring data have been proven wrong and it is their mismatch with validation temperatures that is the problem. If they were wrong after 1960 there is nothing that shows that they were right in 1100AD. Similarly - and also not raised is the use of CO 2 proxies from ice cores when direct metrics were available from ~1800 - especially when it is known that the level of CO 2 at the poles is substantially lower than elsewhere. This CO 2 proxy gives the impression of a steady rise from a 'pre-industrial' level - which is as false as the tree rings - the measured CO 2 in 1850 was higher than today. So taken together we have a CO 2 level that is nothing out of the ordinary and we have a temperature rise that is also nothing exceptional. But we have allowed people to use unvalidated metrics (out of ignorance?) for both CO 2 and 'global temperature' and persuade greedy politicians with ulterior motives to "tax industries into bankruptcy".
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 17, 2009 0:24:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 17, 2009 1:58:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by brian0707 on Dec 17, 2009 2:58:00 GMT
Email scandal. NZ, Australia, Russia raw station data manipulated or missing. More to come.
This kind of reminds me of Tiger Woods' girlfriends. Once the first one was outed, the trickle became a flood.
I think those frustrated with the mainstream media should relax just a little. Sure there is plenty of spinning and obfuscation by the pro-AGW crowd. Thats to be expected.
The other problem is that unlike Tiger Woods girlfriends, this one is more complicated and there are fewer boobs - although some of the warmers may qualify. It will take some time for the press to develop the story and they will need to be led - just as the MSM was led by tabloid journalists in the Woods story. In this case, replace tabloids with sites like Climateaudit or WUWT.
But make no mistake. The damage is deep. Firstly, anything now produced by the dendochronologists, other reconstructionists and modellers will be subject to vastly more scrutiny by the science journals - especially transparency of source data and algorithms used. Secondly, funding is going to dry up for people like Professor Mann. He is damaged goods.
And finally, in the event that scrutiny of things like raw temperature data vs. "value added" data shows a warming bias (an allegation that is far from proven as yet), the MSM will jump all over the scandal. Scandal always trumps boring science - and reporters don't understand the science anyhow.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 17, 2009 6:04:47 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/December 14, 2009 DOE Litigation Hold Notice DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.” As a reminder, this Litigation Hold preservation obligation supersedes any existing statutory or regulatory document retention period or destructive schedule. The determination of what information may be potentially relevant is based upon content and substance and generally does not depend on the type of medium on which the information exists. The information requested may exist in various forms, including paper records, hand-written notes, telephone log entries, email, and other electronic communication (including voicemail), word processing documents (including drafts, spreadsheets, databases, and calendars), telephone logs, electronic address books, PDAs (like Palm Pilots and Blackberries), internet usage files, systems manuals, and network access information in their original format. All ESI should be preserved in its originally-created, or “native” format, along with related metadata. Relevant backup tapes and all indexes for those tapes should also be preserved. Further, information that is reasonably accessible must nonetheless be preserved, because such sources will, at the very least, need to be identified and, under compelling circumstances, may need to be produced. If you have any doubts as to whether specific information is responsive, err on the side of preserving that information. Any employee who has information covered by this Litigation Hold is requested to contact Madeline Screven, Paralegal, SRNS Office of General Council, 5-4634, for additional instructions. Michael L. Wamsted Associate General Council” _______________________________________________ Everyone on-site who has an email account received this letter. That’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000 people. How about that? And this is the first official mention of the entire subject that I have seen. DOE-SR = Department of Energy Savannah River SRNS = Savannah River Nuclear Solutions SRR = Savannah River Remediation
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Dec 17, 2009 8:31:46 GMT
RealClimate's "objective analysis" Objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias Bwahahahaha, I had to go look after reading that comment. My god that's hilarious. Yes, lets hear an "objective" analysis from people caught adjusting the data to meet their agendas...that have a stake in the very data they're analyzing...and shown on a site that enforces such censorship of dissenting opinions that the community felt there was a need to create an entirely different site to save screencaps of that censorship. Its difficult to draw comparisons to just how unobjective that is without running into Godwin's law. I'll tell you one thing I _LOVE_ about climategate...it freaking killed the practice of linking to the "REAL scientist" at RealClimate.org! Since then the only links I've seen posted were to mock the realclimate crew and their crazy analysis.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 17, 2009 11:00:11 GMT
If the Russians are correct, and the Russian climate data has been cherrypicked, this sets in place what could be a major slow motion train wreck.
Presumably it will not be long before the raw Russian data is compared with that used by CRU, and this will be impossible to block any more.
Then the African data ....
Then South American data ...
and so on.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 17, 2009 18:55:49 GMT
Who "owns" an email?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 18, 2009 2:51:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Dec 18, 2009 17:01:06 GMT
Who owns an email? That depends a bit but if it can even remotely be linked to employment it is best to consider that the employer owns the email. And the text message, voice mail, any and all notes, etc.. And that the employer can demand and get any and all information on demand.
Remember, in this society prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich - even if the sandwich had no intention of committing a crime, and was not even aware that inaction constituted a crime. So, unless those receiving orders to retain and/or surrender such information wish to have a nice long vacation in a country club prison they had better comply with the same celerity they would if Micheal Wamstead spoke with the voice of God.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 19, 2009 7:22:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 19, 2009 16:15:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by norman on Dec 19, 2009 16:41:32 GMT
It's to be expected I suppose, the Washington Post accepts an editorial from one of the individuals implicated by the e-mails who states, "there's nothing there!" I understand the same paper will be accepting one from Bernie Madoff next week.
|
|