[FairfieldLife] Re: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG wg...@... wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ Sorry, but that's a highly misleading and most likely deliberately disinenuous editorial. The much-quoted trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline is perfectly innocuous. Trick refers to a neat way of handling something; and the data that's being hidden is widely known and has been since 1998. It's an apparent minor anomaly that nobody quite understands yet, but it isn't anywhere near enough to warrant throwing out the entire thesis. But when this anomalous data isn't hidden, it tends to obscure the overall trend. So far, no smoking gun has been found in these hacked emails that would cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming. They *do* raise questions about the unwillingness of the scientists involved to release all their data and methodology. But to claim this means there's a conspiracy to hide fraud at this point makes even less sense than to claim there was a conspiracy to hide the Bush administration's participation in 9/11.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG wgm4u@ wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ Sorry, but that's a highly misleading and most likely deliberately disinenuous editorial. The much-quoted trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline is perfectly innocuous. Trick refers to a neat way of handling something; and the data that's being hidden is widely known and has been since 1998. It's an apparent minor anomaly that nobody quite understands yet, but it isn't anywhere near enough to warrant throwing out the entire thesis. But when this anomalous data isn't hidden, it tends to obscure the overall trend. So far, no smoking gun has been found in these hacked emails that would cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming. They *do* raise questions about the unwillingness of the scientists involved to release all their data and methodology. But to claim this means there's a conspiracy to hide fraud at this point makes even less sense than to claim there was a conspiracy to hide the Bush administration's participation in 9/11. It only proves that it's *junk science*, more research is requiredtime to go back to the drawing board, sorry! The research has been *contaminated*, at least in this case! Objectivity has been compromised leaving it impotent, that's the real damage! Doesn't necessarily mean global warming may not be occurring, maybe due to sun spots? Just the CO2 theory has been damaged due to apparent bias among *scientists*, (so-called).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers!
Judy wrote: So far, no smoking gun has been found in these hacked emails that would cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming... You left out a few things, Judy. The CRU scientists were discussing ways to manipulate the data in order to get their preferred results. That's being dishonest to say the least. Why didn't you point this out? The 'trick' was to hide data on the decline in temperatures in recent years. The inconvenient data was hidden under a completely different set of data. That trick is dishonest. You also forgot to point out that the CRU scientists discussed ways to subvert the scientific peer review process so that they could keep skeptical papers from publication. That's unethical. In addition, you failed to point out that the CRU scientists tried to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom. That's probably illegal. These hacked emails are the Pentagon Papers of ClimateGate - it's the Vietnam of anthropogenic climate change. The dirty little secrets are out now - Al Gore is a liar of immense proportions, possibly foisting on us the biggest science lie of modern times!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Judy wrote: So far, no smoking gun has been found in these hacked emails that would cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming... You left out a few things, Judy. The CRU scientists were discussing ways to manipulate the data in order to get their preferred results. That's being dishonest to say the least. Why didn't you point this out? You mean, why didn't I point it out when I wrote: The much-quoted trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline is perfectly innocuous. Trick refers to a neat way of handling something; and the data that's being hidden is widely known and has been since 1998. It's an apparent minor anomaly that nobody quite understands yet, but it isn't anywhere near enough to warrant throwing out the entire thesis. But when this anomalous data isn't hidden, it tends to obscure the overall trend. The 'trick' was to hide data on the decline in temperatures in recent years. The inconvenient data was hidden under a completely different set of data. That trick is dishonest. No, it's not, as I explained in my post and quoted again above. You also forgot to point out that the CRU scientists discussed ways to subvert the scientific peer review process so that they could keep skeptical papers from publication. That's unethical. In addition, you failed to point out that the CRU scientists tried to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom. That's probably illegal. Here's what I said: They *do* raise questions about the unwillingness of the scientists involved to release all their data and methodology. You need to read the post before you comment.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG wg...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, BillyG wgm4u@ wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ Sorry, but that's a highly misleading and most likely deliberately disinenuous editorial. The much-quoted trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline is perfectly innocuous. Trick refers to a neat way of handling something; and the data that's being hidden is widely known and has been since 1998. It's an apparent minor anomaly that nobody quite understands yet, but it isn't anywhere near enough to warrant throwing out the entire thesis. But when this anomalous data isn't hidden, it tends to obscure the overall trend. So far, no smoking gun has been found in these hacked emails that would cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming. They *do* raise questions about the unwillingness of the scientists involved to release all their data and methodology. But to claim this means there's a conspiracy to hide fraud at this point makes even less sense than to claim there was a conspiracy to hide the Bush administration's participation in 9/11. It only proves that it's *junk science* Proves nothing whatsoever of the kind. Proves nothing at all except that the scientists involved are way too protective of their data. , more research is required As the scientists themselves would all agree. time to go back to the drawing board, sorry! Nope, sorry. Nothing so far has been found in the hacked emails that calls the basic theory in question. The research has been *contaminated*, at least in this case! Nope, sorry. Nothing has been discovered so far in the hacked emails that contaminates the research. Objectivity has been compromised leaving it impotent, that's the real damage! It's certainly damaging to the scientists' reputations, but it don't say nuttin' so far about the objectivity of their research. snip
