OT: Button your lips, data police are coming...

I'm a taxpayer, not a Government employee.

They should open up. If there's cross-duggery at the skullroads, I want to know.

Mark L. Fergerson

This climate change business is just a huge scam to fleece the taxpayers. Most of the so-called "evidence" for it came from the University of East Anglia (I believe it was) and they were caught fabricating their results to please the governments who commissioned them to do the research. Lying bastards!

Yes, the surprising part is that after all the revelations of poor science there are still scientists who insist that there is valid science behind this, something like 97% of the scientists in the field. So what if they have huge amounts of data supporting the idea...? If there is even one crumb of evidence that is not clear or any hint of fraud by any of the thousands of researchers, it should be denounced as a scam.

The idea that the vast preponderance of the evidence should decide the validity of the issue is absurd.

"Show us the *minutes*"!!!

The point is that they SAY they have huge amounts of data, but all you are ever allowed to see are charts and graphs reduced from the data. The question is "What methods were used to reduce the data to the charts and graphs?"

That's the question they do not want to answer.

Why not?

Mark L. Fergerson

One of the more reliable slogans peddled by the climate change denial lobby - which is a huge scam designed to let the people who dig up fossil carbon and sell it as fuel keep on doing it for a few years longer. If you go to

you can see how much Exxon-Mobil has spent on spreading the lie. Finding an ybody who has funded climate scientists in the same undercover way would be a little more difficult.

That's another lie put about by the climate change denial lobby, who are al most certainly responsible for the original hacking, and for most of the ly ing interpretations of the e-mails.

In fact the University of East Anglia is a minor player in climate science

- as a minor university it's a minor player in most areas - and they got to be the target of denialist ire because their staff went after a rogue - pl anted - editor on one of the minor climate journals after he published a re ally incompetent denialist paper despite having been told by all the four r eferees he'd consulted for peer-review that it was too crummy to publish.

Once the scandal got aired - largely as a result of detective work by the U niversity of East Anglia guys - the journals editorial board resigned, forc ing the the owner of the journal to fire the rogue editor.

Fred Pearce - who wrote "The Climate Files" - is a science journalist rathe r than a scientist, and regarded that particular business as interference w ith the free expression of opinion, rather than as a reaction to the corrup tion of the peer-reviewed literature. He was wrong, but British science jou rnalism - even in The Guardian - isn't all that good at the best of times.

e:

ers.

ast

lts

ying

are ever allowed to see are charts and graphs reduced from the data. The qu estion is "What methods were used to reduce the data to the charts and grap hs?"

It's spelled out in some detail at

If you plough through that - I've done it and it takes quite a while - you' ll have a much clearer idea of what's going on. You might even be able to u nderstand the significance of the data presented at - say

The answers are all out there, but finding the right questions to ask is to lerably complicated.

Probably because if you have to learn - say - what "pressure broadening" me ans in infra-red spectroscopy, and why it's important to climate science be fore you can ask a useful question, you've spent months acquiring a signifi cant chunk of a proper scientific education, rather than buying expensive c ommercial entertainment and keeping the economy turning over.

I think you are mistaken. There is a lot of raw data available if you care to dig in and process it yourself. Have you made any attempts to find the data in the study?

Have you read what is being requested of the climate researchers? House science committee chair Lamar Smith is asking for "internal deliberations" consisting of "internal documents and emails". I can see why they don't wish to turn them over. These are thinking documents and are not worded to be understood by anyone except the recipients. Just as with any scientific or engineering process, it can appear chaotic if viewed out of context by those who don't understand the process.

Representative Smith has a clear agenda which is very much against the results of the research. I can see why anyone would not want to release those types of thinking documents which can easily be used against the scientists. Even people in this group who should be educated enough to understand how science works loves to criticize fields they don't really understand. Heck, one idiot here thinks meteorology is not really science because they can't predict the weather accurately more than a week ahead. Clearly some people have never read anything about chaos theory. How can you expect people like that to review working documents and not rant about every nit they find?

This is not an attempt to find truth or be "honest" about the science. This is just a witch hunt looking for reputations to be burned at the stake.

Me too.

If congress is your boss, you have to show your emails and minutes.

And resign if you don't like that.

joe

The dog has eaten the data/analyze program, at least this was the excuse given in the hockey stick case :-)

While this would be an expected excuse by a child, while not doing his/her homework, I would not have expected this excuse from "scientists"? with long university education.

Oh dear. I guess y'all don't have the speshul sekrit URL for getting sekrit data and sekrit software and communicating with sekrit pepul:

The name GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) is a trick to throw you off the trail - they really do earth studies (which may be borderline illegal and may be cut from the budget but the earth floats around in space so it may turn out to be OK).

On Saturday, 12 December 2015 21:27:51 UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrot e:

te:

yers.

East

ults

Lying

are ever allowed to see are charts and graphs reduced from the data. The q uestion is "What methods were used to reduce the data to the charts and gra phs?"

Cite?

I think you may have misunderstood what was said - perhaps if you quoted Ma nn's actual words,rather quoting from the usual denialist sources, we could see where you are coming from.

As far as Mann's data goes, he's got a much better defense than "the dog at e my homework". Some dozen independent studies, using a dozen different pro xies for historical temperature, have replicated his hockey stick - not per fectly, but closely enough to make it clear that they are all seeing much t he same global temperature pattern.

The denialist propaganda machine did want to spread the idea that anthropog enic global warming wasn't happening, and Mann's data made that difficult, so they did pull out all the stops. The scientific discussion is long over, but the denialist web-sites don't bother taking down old arguments - they are designed to influence the scientifically illiterate, and for that they do work, as you and John Larkin (amongst others) remind us from time to tim e.

Congress isn't you boss. It's more like your share-holders. They supervise the collection and distribution of the taxes that pay for all the work, but they haven't any detailed idea of what's being done, and the "Congressiona l Enquiries" into climate change are just the usual dog-and-pony shows wher e dumb politicians get to grandstand about stuff some lobbyist doesn't like .

If you want congressional thinking about climate change, search on Jim Inho fe.

This may be unfair to less addle-pated congressmen, but they haven't bother ed to get him thrown out for asinine incompetence, which is a trifle unfai r to the people he was elected to represented, as opposed to the oil compan y interests that he actually serves.

My experience with non-engineering professors is that the majority are scum. ...Jim Thompson

I was referencing to the horizontal part of the hockey stick, i.e. claiming that there have been no temperature variation for a last hundred or thousand years prior to the industrial age. In reality, the temperature has varied greatly after the ice age, sometimes warmer than today.

Thus the Mann's method has been suspect for the times before the industrial age, why would one believe in his methods during the industrial age ?

It has also been found that by using random series, one could generate similar results by adjusting the parameter in a suitable way.

Yes, I can see that. The industrial age is such a pronounced deviation from the previous era that no one should be expected to be able to predict the temperature changes accurately, especially since the rate of added CO2 is continuing to increase.

Of course. You can generate any sequence randomly... infinite idiot theory.

Or not. It isn't Congress that is asking for the information. It is just Representative Smith. One voice does not speak for the body.

No, Congress is NOAA's boss.

Mark L. Fergerson

You're wrong, as usual, of course.

One problem with the original paper was that it used ice core and tree ring proxies for old times and then switched to more or less direct temperature measurement during the last 100-150 years (with unknown weights for modern series).

Since ice core and tree ring proxies should react in the same way up today, why not only use the same centuries long proxies up to 2010 instead of cutting off and replacing with other series at 1850 or