Log in or Sign up

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Nov 20, 2009.

Page 8 of 18

martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

red55 said: ↑

A decade old study that withstood scientific challenge is a finished project.
Click to expand...

ok good throw the data out then, no need to ever have it reviewed by peers. peer review isnt important. the matter was settled, never to be revisited, and that is all. balance and pragmatism win out again.

martin, Nov 30, 2009

#71
Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

Joined:

Oct 11, 2003

Messages:

12,326

Likes Received:

575

Asteroids hitting the earth are a much more bigger problem than global warming ever was or ever will be!
Its amazing that the left never took advantage of this issue!

Sourdoughman, Nov 30, 2009

#72
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

red55 said: ↑

A decade old study that withstood scientific challenge is a finished project.
Click to expand...

red55 said: ↑

Not even hardly. There has been no scientific challenge to the conclusions. You are grasping at straws.

Emails and old records . . . we call that bullchit.
Click to expand...

It's hard to challenge selective conclusions. I'm no scientist, but I don't think you are supposed to know the conclusion before you arrive at it. Garbage in garbage out. Get these geeks working on something important.

SabanFan, Nov 30, 2009

#73
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

Sourdoughman said: ↑

Asteroids hitting the earth are a much more bigger problem than global warming ever was or ever will be!
Its amazing that the left never took advantage of this issue!
Click to expand...

there are so many problems that are much more important than global warming.

and aside from that i simply dont believe people when they say they fear for the future of humankind. nobody really gives a damn about the future of humankind, they only say that.

there are problems here and now, like poverty and aids and even malaria that are killing far more than global warming ever will. but nobody gives a damn. and why should they, i certainly dont. i just dont like the pretense that anyone really cares. its a lie.

martin, Nov 30, 2009

#74
Texas_Tiger Tiger Stuck in Aggie Land

Joined:

Aug 30, 2009

Messages:

404

Likes Received:

52

martin said: ↑

there are so many problems that are much more important than global warming.
Click to expand...

Not when your career depends on research dollars.

Just look at the industry that has emerged for this charade. From carbon credits (I wish I could of gotten in on that one, talk about a cash cow!) to Albert Gore's "Docu-Drama" there is a significant amout of money being made, and these people will do everything they can to make sure the revenue stream doesn't dry up.

Texas_Tiger, Nov 30, 2009

#75
jibboo Founding Member

Joined:

Sep 25, 2003

Messages:

67

Likes Received:

13

I'd assumed some supergeek(TM) would have gotten the source code compiled over the long weekend. Nope. It's either incomplete or doesn't work. No one's made sense of that I could find. Not too surprising, though... apparently AEU-CRU couldn't verif their own results!

http://comments.realclearpolitics.com/report.php?1 said:

One of the documents (the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file) is a THREE YEAR journal of a CRU programmer describing everything he tried with the data and models in an attempt to reproduce existing results CRU had published. Comments in the file make it clear that “HARRY” tried FOR THREE YEARS to recreate CRU’s published results AND FAILED.

Besides, the absolutly sorry state of affairs in the data handling and software managment the HARRY_READ_ME.txt reveals, the document is critical to understand WHY CRU has not released its data and model software.

Do you see the REAL significance of this because it is absolutely fatal to the credibility of anything CRU has produced.

What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU programmer, who had access to all the data, access to all the code, access to all the people who developed the code and the models and still HE could still NOT duplicate CRU’s OWN results. If he can’t it simply means the CRU’s results cannot be reproduced even by themselves and so there is no point anyone else even trying -- CRU themselves have proven it's a waste of time and so they themselves have proven their own results are plain rubbish. That means any "peer reviewed" document CRU produced along with any other papers that cited the CRU papers are based on data the CRU themselves can't verify.

Given the CRU is one of the most, if not the most cited sources of climate data -- upon which trillions of dollars of economic policy is being set, the importance of what the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file reveals becomes scary.

A very nice layman's summary of some of the issues in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt can eb found here...
Click to expand...

The Devil's Kitchen: Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file

The link is kinda techy, but funny. Keep in mind the exerpts are from AEU-CRU's own guy! (For reference FFS = For F%$^s Sake)

*snicker*

It's interesting to watch those that for years have pointed to their "indisputable science" are now screaming "we don't have the data, but trust us".

jibboo, Nov 30, 2009

#76
MFn G I M P Founding Member

Joined:

Feb 4, 2004

Messages:

1,977

Likes Received:

87

Mark Steyn on National Review Online

red55 said: ↑

Not even hardly. There has been no scientific challenge to the conclusions. You are grasping at straws.

Emails and old records . . . we call that bullchit.
Click to expand...

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.

...

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask “Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?” Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia. The “consensus” warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as “peer-reviewed” if it’s published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc (Peermate of the Month: Al Gore, reclining naked, draped in dead polar-bear fur, on a melting ice floe), and Ed Begley Jr. and “Andy” Revkin would still have wandered out glassy-eyed into the streets droning “Peer-reviewed studies. Cannot question. Peer-reviewed studies. The science is settled . . . ”
Click to expand...

MFn G I M P, Nov 30, 2009

#77
shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

Joined:

Jan 11, 2005

Messages:

37,735

Likes Received:

23,918

SabanFan said: ↑

It's hard to challenge selective conclusions. I'm no scientist, but I don't think you are supposed to know the conclusion before you arrive at it. Garbage in garbage out. Get these geeks working on something important.
Click to expand...

The stake into the heart of the gw whackos. Nicely done mon ami.:thumb:

shane0911, Dec 1, 2009

#78
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

martin said: ↑

ok good throw the data out then, no need to ever have it reviewed by peers. peer review isnt important. the matter was settled, never to be revisited, and that is all. balance and pragmatism win out again.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance about what peer review is is not my problem. His peers did review the data before it was published and many other researchers used the same original data.

Their conclusions hasn't been challenged by scientists, only their emails by critics who don't understand what they are talking about and expect people to keep each and every scrap of paper from old projects.

Still waiting on you to prove that their papers were fraudulent, Bud. How are you doing with that?

red55, Dec 1, 2009

#79
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

SabanFan said: ↑

It's hard to challenge selective conclusions.
Click to expand...

What exactly is a selective conclusion?

SabanFan;1022809I said:

I'm no scientist, but I don't think you are supposed to know the conclusion before you arrive at it.
Click to expand...

So what makes you think this happened?

red55, Dec 1, 2009

#80

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 8 of 18

Share This Page