Climategate

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, but a site made by an organisation (like a company or a university or a institution) will have info for the organisation in the DNS record, regardless of who makes the site.

This way it makes it look like some IT guy (not a scientist) disagreed with climate change and just made a site then found a few people that agreed with him to sign on.

Which doesn't mean much, science isn't done through random websites.

My point is it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by photon

I said I picked a few names out of the list at random. I'm not going to go through a list of 150 names and vet them all. Most of them aren't climatologists.

I didn't say none of them were published, I said the ones I looked at weren't. I can say likely none of them are because as far as I know there's no published papers in relevant journals which propose an alternative to the consensus that explains all the observations.

According to leading AGW scientists, it is made extremely difficult for journals to publish anti-AGW articles without getting black-balled. But maybe that's only the East Anglia folks that do that.

Originally Posted by photon

No, that's what people like Glenn Beck want to make people think. But there is no evidence that the temperature data is corrupt. Please provide the evidence that it is. Be specific.

You haven't demonstrated the data is corrupt so the rest does not follow yet. And even if the data is corrupt, as you said there are other sets of data which say the same thing, and say it's worse than this set of data does.

I've never seen Glenn Beck in my life. How about:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...ka-bodged-too/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/

Claiming that scientists are the only sentient being capable of comprehending this subject is disingenuous. There are intelligent people out there without letters behind their names that can make sense out of it, too. And publishing in a journal doesn't gold-clad a paper based on crap data. It just makes it widely distributed.

Originally Posted by photon

If you have support, then provide the support. Again be specific, hand waving doesn't mean anything.

I think I've been fairly calm. Can you please point out the "hand waving?" Do you mean like this: "No, that's what people like Glenn Beck want to make people think."?

[RougeUnderoos]

I just read an editorial by Mark Steyn in the December 7th issue of Maclean's.

The gist of it is that the theory that humans are causing global warming/climate change falls completely apart because of what is said in an email exchange between two guys that I've never heard of.

This premise looks sketchy to me. There must be hundreds of thousands of people studying the issue. Are they all basing their conclusions on the research of these two guys? Has there been research into the issue that doesn't rely on what these guys say?

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

My point is it is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, credibility is important, people are always willing to lie and deceive, or just plain get it wrong to try and support their view.

Originally Posted by zuluking

According to leading AGW scientists, it is made extremely difficult for journals to publish anti-AGW articles without getting black-balled. But maybe that's only the East Anglia folks that do that.

According to which AGW scientists? Black-balled by whom? Black-balled from what? What evidence that "East Anglia folks" have done this? Again be specific. If there's this group of scientists that are trying to get anti-AGW papers published, it would require a global conspiracy among tens of thousands of scientists to do so, of which there is zero evidence.

You do realize that what is said in a private email about what one would like to do is vastly different than what one actually does right? Venting frustrations is different than taking actions. One of the two journals that they expressed a desire to block (not from being published mind you, but from a report) actually was included in the report.

Originally Posted by zuluking

I've never seen Glenn Beck in my life. How about:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...ka-bodged-too/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/

Thanks for the links, but I don't see how either of those address the specific claim that the HADCRUT3 dataset is corrupt.

The first one takes the raw data and creates some graphs which the author says disagrees with the IPCC report.. well of course if you start with a different set of numbers you are going to come up with a different graph. This isn't evidence the HADCRUT3 dataset is corrupt, this is the author disagreeing with the adjustments made to the raw data. It would be more compelling if the author first demonstrated an understanding of how the raw data was adjusted and why, and then why he disagreed with those adjustments. The way it is written the logic is backwards, he takes the raw data, does something (which I don't know is even valid, I'm not a statistician), sees cooling, then concludes that the report is wrong. "I do something different and I get the answer I want therefore you are wrong" is not a good argument.

The second one is similar, it takes issue with a specific instance of how the data was adjusted. The author admits to not knowing why an adjustment was made in the way it was so decides that's evidence of corruption; finding something and then fitting it to the desired conclusion, exactly what the author is accusing others of. This would also be more compelling if the author went out and found out why the data was adjusted the way it was and showed why that adjustment was incorrect.

I had thought we were talking about "climategate", specifically how these emails demonstrate that the HADCRUT3 data set is corrupt based on the stolen emails, that's what I was asking for evidence of.. the links you posted are completely unrelated to that.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Claiming that scientists are the only sentient being capable of comprehending this subject is disingenuous.

Of course it would be, fortunately I didn't do that. You or I can understand how to build a bridge, but I don't think either of us should be trusted to actually build one. Things are complicated with lots of details that an armchair scientist (or even a scientist from a different discipline) can miss.

Originally Posted by zuluking

There are intelligent people out there without letters behind their names that can make sense out of it, too.

Making sense of something is vastly different than being able to speak authoritatively about something, or being able to know and apply all the knowledge and subtleties and nuances of a discipline. I bet if you spoke with most scientists about disciplines other than their own, they will freely admit that, because they know how complicated their own field is.

Originally Posted by zuluking

And publishing in a journal doesn't gold-clad a paper based on crap data. It just makes it widely distributed.

No, being published in a journal is more than distribution. And even passing peer review is only the first step. Once published then you have to see who references your paper and why and how. What other papers are written to support it? What other papers are written to refute it? If the data in the paper is crap, another scientist (or even the same scientist!) will write a paper to show that.

Originally Posted by zuluking

I think I've been fairly calm. Can you please point out the "hand waving?" Do you mean like this: "No, that's what people like Glenn Beck want to make people think."?

You misunderstand me, handwaving isn't about being emotional or losing calm. Handwaving refers to making a point without supporting it, or supporting it only vaguely.

Something like this "The CRU scientists are corrupt because the stolen emails have shown their corruption, so the data set is corrupt." is handwaving, because there's no actual support to the claim.

Which is why I asked for specifics, specifics usually help cut through handwaving.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Thanks for the links, but I don't see how either of those address the specific claim that the HADCRUT3 dataset is corrupt.

The first one takes the raw data and creates some graphs which the author says disagrees with the IPCC report.. well of course if you start with a different set of numbers you are going to come up with a different graph. This isn't evidence the HADCRUT3 dataset is corrupt, this is the author disagreeing with the adjustments made to the raw data. It would be more compelling if the author first demonstrated an understanding of how the raw data was adjusted and why, and then why he disagreed with those adjustments. The way it is written the logic is backwards, he takes the raw data, does something (which I don't know is even valid, I'm not a statistician), sees cooling, then concludes that the report is wrong. "I do something different and I get the answer I want therefore you are wrong" is not a good argument.

The second one is similar, it takes issue with a specific instance of how the data was adjusted. The author admits to not knowing why an adjustment was made in the way it was so decides that's evidence of corruption; finding something and then fitting it to the desired conclusion, exactly what the author is accusing others of. This would also be more compelling if the author went out and found out why the data was adjusted the way it was and showed why that adjustment was incorrect.

I had thought we were talking about "climategate", specifically how these emails demonstrate that the HADCRUT3 data set is corrupt based on the stolen emails, that's what I was asking for evidence of.. the links you posted are completely unrelated to that.

The CRU can't even demonstrate how they ended up with their dataset in the first place. After all, they tossed their source data. (seriously, who does that?) No one knows exactly what went into HADCRUT3.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

The only way to understand what went on at UAE is to attempt to reverse engineer based on particular stations. And the logic behind the adjustments is even lost on the coders working the project.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Climategate is about more than some emails.

[zuluking]

Interestingly enough, "climategate" still doesn't show up in the Google's type-ahead suggestions. climategroundzero.com with its 8000+ hits show up, but "climategate" with it 15,000,000+ million hits doesn't. You have to type the whole dang thing in. Try it yourself.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

The CRU can't even demonstrate how they ended up with their dataset in the first place. After all, they tossed their source data. (seriously, who does that?) No one knows exactly what went into HADCRUT3.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

This has already been discussed.

No they didn't, 95% of their source data is available online right now, you can download it. The rest isn't available because they aren't allowed to make it available; the licensing of the data required that they use it then discard it.

This also relates to some of the FOI inquiries.. if they are legally not allowed to share the data, of course a FOI inquiry is going to be rejected.

Originally Posted by zuluking

The only way to understand what went on at UAE is to attempt to reverse engineer based on particular stations. And the logic behind the adjustments is even lost on the coders working the project.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Climategate is about more than some emails.

This is what I mean by handwaving. Claims without support, or vague support (posting a billion line text file).

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Interestingly enough, "climategate" still doesn't show up in the Google's type-ahead suggestions. climategroundzero.com with its 8000+ hits show up, but "climategate" with it 15,000,000+ million hits doesn't. You have to type the whole dang thing in. Try it yourself.

1) If I type in "clim" climategate is the second result, so no this is false.

2) It's only interesting in that it gives some clues about how responsive Google is with the suggestions to what's popular, which is interesting for nerds but not that interesting for AGW.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

This has already been discussed.

No they didn't, 95% of their source data is available online right now, you can download it. The rest isn't available because they aren't allowed to make it available; the licensing of the data required that they use it then discard it.

This also relates to some of the FOI inquiries.. if they are legally not allowed to share the data, of course a FOI inquiry is going to be rejected.

This is what I mean by handwaving. Claims without support, or vague support (posting a billion line text file).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6945445.ece

You should just email them and tell them to download it off the internet.

Obviously, you won't accept any "claims." Basically, I need to trust that most of the source data is available on the internet based on your statement (as the raw data from HADCRUT3 is toast, there is no way to prove your claim), but the comments in the source code providing the homogenization of the climate temperature data is too vague (written by an actual UEA developer based on the incoherence of the previous and current source code being relied on to provide these infallible datasets.) Just because you don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate doesn't diminish the efforts of others to do so.

You do realize, by your own definition, that you are "handwaving" at every one of my posts.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by zuluking

You should just email them and tell them to download it off the internet.

How does that they're going to "re-examine" the data (from your link) for transparency and public confidence purposes take away from the already stated fact that 95% is available to download online?

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6945445.ece

You should just email them and tell them to download it off the internet.

It's not my job to fact check for every journalist in the world.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Obviously, you won't accept any "claims."

No one should accept claims. Support the claims and I would accept them.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Basically, I need to trust that most of the source data is available on the internet based on your statement (as the raw data from HADCRUT3 is toast, there is no way to prove your claim)

I provided a link to where you can download it yourself. The CRU confirms that it's available and it has been for years. You keep saying the raw data is toast, but it isn't, I provided a link to most of it and the reason for why the rest isn't available from the University.

Originally Posted by zuluking

but the comments in the source code providing the homogenization of the climate temperature data is too vague (written by an actual UEA developer based on the incoherence of the previous and current source code being relied on to provide these infallible datasets.) Just because you don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate doesn't diminish the efforts of others to do so.

Just because others say they've evaluated it doesn't mean they have, or doesn't mean they understand the context either.

And it's been demonstrated that AGW deniers have already misrepresented and misunderstood the content and context of the stolen emails, so it's reasonable to be skeptical of this claim too.

"but the comments in the source code". Which comments exactly? I'm a programmer by trade, so don't start making backhanded insults about "don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate". I'll be completely honest about what I don't understand and what I don't want to take the time to discuss.

Originally Posted by zuluking

You do realize, by your own definition, that you are "handwaving" at every one of my posts.

When I said 95% of the data was available, I provided a link to the data. That's not handwaving. OTOH I'm not the one making claims about the data set. I'm asking for specifics and I'm not getting any. If you want additional support for something I've said please ask for it and I will give it.

[HOOT]

I only got one question: What does OTOH mean?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

I provided a link to where you can download it yourself. The CRU confirms that it's available and it has been for years. You keep saying the raw data is toast, but it isn't, I provided a link to most of it and the reason for why the rest isn't available from the University.

Just because others say they've evaluated it doesn't mean they have, or doesn't mean they understand the context either.

Doesn't mean they haven't or they don't.

Originally Posted by photon

And it's been demonstrated that AGW deniers have already misrepresented and misunderstood the content and context of the stolen emails, so it's reasonable to be skeptical of this claim too.

"but the comments in the source code". Which comments exactly? I'm a programmer by trade, so don't start making backhanded insults about "don't understand it or have the patience to evaluate". I'll be completely honest about what I don't understand and what I don't want to take the time to discuss.



When I said 95% of the data was available, I provided a link to the data. That's not handwaving. OTOH I'm not the one making claims about the data set. I'm asking for specifics and I'm not getting any. If you want additional support for something I've said please ask for it and I will give it.

Where is the other 5%? Or do you merely claim 95% is available? Maybe it's only 80%? There is NO history of the data used to generate one of the most widely used temperature sets. We just "accept the claim" that 95% is readily available. And the data has been manipulated to the point where a programmer who cares doesn't even know where it's at anymore. Of course, his name isn't on your list of people to trust, so you don't accept this. Nor do you care to discuss - it's simply dismissed.

And the "scientists" only mean what is published in the journals, but their shady practices as illuminated through the emails don't count.

Why is the Met Office embarking on a three year initiative to replicate the questionable practices only in a scientifically honest way? Don't they know the data is on the internet, so no biggie?

And no need to get testy about it. I assumed you were a climate scientist, because of all the factual statements you were making and the air of dismissal around anything contrary. And I said you either didn't comprehend it OR didn't have the patience to go through it. It was not an insult and, in fact, was accurate for option B.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Where is the other 5%? Or do you merely claim 95% is available?

No, 95% is available.

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.
“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies. The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/.../nov/CRUupdate

And as to why the other 5% hasn't been released .... Halldór Björnsson of the Icelandic Met. Service explains the problems.

Re: CRU data accessibility.
National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have different rules on data exchange. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) organizes the exchange of “basic data”, i.e. data that are needed for weather forecasts. For details on these see WMO resolution number 40 (see http://bit.ly/8jOjX1).
This document acknowledges that WMO member states can place restrictions on the dissemination of data to third parties “for reasons such as national laws or costs of production”. These restrictions are only supposed to apply to commercial use, the research and education community is supposed to have free access to all the data.
Now, for researchers this sounds open and fine. In practice it hasn’t proved to be so.
Most NMSs also can distribute all sorts of data that are classified as “additional data and products”. Restrictions can be placed on these. These special data and products (which can range from regular weather data from a specific station to maps of rain intensity based on satellite and radar data). Many nations do place restrictions on such data (see link for additional data on above WMO-40 webpage for details).
The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.
What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.
The ideal, that all data should be free and open is unfortunately not adhered to by a large portion of the meteorological community. Probably only a small portion of the CRU data is “locked” but the end effect is that all their data becomes closed. It is not their fault, and I am sure that they dislike them as much as any other researcher who has tried to get access to all data from stations in region X in country Y.
These restrictions end up by wasting resources and hurting everyone. The research community (CRU included) and the public are the victims. If you don’t like it, write to you NMSs and urge them to open all their data.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...comment-144845

Hoot ... On the one/other hand.

[Thor]

Iceland, of course is the place for reason

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Doesn't mean they haven't or they don't.

Which is why I ask for specifics so I can evaluate it myself. Talking heads and news folk (especially those trying to confirm an ideology rather than finding scientific truth) rarely have the ability to evaluate it. Anyone who knows anything about science knows how bad journalists are at reporting anything to do with science.

Look at how many "journalists" think "hide the decline" refers to global temperatures.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Where is the other 5%?

I've already told you where.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Or do you merely claim 95% is available?

No, I linked to it, and the CRU people confirmed that that's how much has been available for years.

Originally Posted by zuluking

We just "accept the claim" that 95% is readily available.

Well sure everyone could be lying, but if you want to get into the realm of crazy global conspiracy start some other thread.

It'd be easy enough for someone to confirm or deny too.. get the set of data claimed to be the 95%. Start gathering data from the original meteorological station sources and compare the two. If someone thinks that the are lying about 95% being available (meaning they think they are lying about their source data and used made up data to begin with), this would be how they would find it out.

Originally Posted by zuluking

And the data has been manipulated to the point where a programmer who cares doesn't even know where it's at anymore. Of course, his name isn't on your list of people to trust, so you don't accept this. Nor do you care to discuss - it's simply dismissed.

I haven't dismissed it, I've asked for specifics about this repeatedly. Which programmer? Where does the programmer say this? How do you expect me to discuss or evaluate this claim without any information? I ask you for details, you ignore that request and then accuse me of things? That hardly seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by zuluking

And the "scientists" only mean what is published in the journals, but their shady practices as illuminated through the emails don't count.

Which shady practices? Again be specific.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Why is the Met Office embarking on a three year initiative to replicate the questionable practices only in a scientifically honest way? Don't they know the data is on the internet, so no biggie?

You know this kind of thing makes any kind of reasonable discussion difficult. It hasn't been demonstrated that the science behind HADCRUT3 is dishonest.

Anyway, first, if you want to know why the Met Office is doing what they are doing, ask them, I'm sure I don't know. Public pressure? Second, what you say make no sense since the Met Office says they re-doing the analysis of the data. Which doesn't have anything to do with the data being available or not ya.. you're mixing up analysing raw data with having that raw data.. the Met Office couldn't analyse the data if they didn't have it now could they?

Originally Posted by zuluking

And no need to get testy about it. I assumed you were a climate scientist, because of all the factual statements you were making and the air of dismissal around anything contrary. And I said you either didn't comprehend it OR didn't have the patience to go through it. It was not an insult and, in fact, was accurate for option B.

You never assumed I was a climate scientist, to say that in the way you are is just inflammatory and useless to the conversation. If you don't want any real content to the discussion then please just say so, no need to employ silly comments like that.

I haven't dismissed anything, I'm trying to engage in a discussion, and that requires information and support from both sides. Or does disagreeing with you or providing an reasonable explanation for something that doesn't support the "corruption" idea qualify as dismissing to you?

You said I don't understand it or don't have the patience to evaluate it, but you haven't provided what I'm supposed to understand or have the patience to evaluate! So I'll ask one more time, which comments in which code?

[Ford Prefect]

I try to avoid these debates because I think both sides are flawed. Emissions aren't the root cause of anything. Humans are, and there are simply too many of us ... more than the planet can support. I'm sure nature will correct this imbalance and restore balance to the planet's ecosystem. The "correction" could be a bit of biatch, but nature has a way of correcting species when they overpopulate and threaten the whole structure. I don't know why humans think they are an exception to this.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I try to avoid these debates because I think both sides are flawed. Emissions aren't the root cause of anything. Humans are, and there are simply too many of us ... more than the planet can support. I'm sure nature will correct this imbalance and restore balance to the planet's ecosystem. The "correction" could be a bit of biatch, but nature has a way of correcting species when they overpopulate and threaten the whole structure. I don't know why humans think they are an exception to this.

Nature's already trying this, but we're getting too smart at curing diseases. Pretty soon Mother Nature's going to have to send a doozy and cause an 9.5 eathquake in the Atlantic ocean. The tsunami should thin out the population a bit. Luckily we'll all be safe here in Alberta.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Nature's already trying this, but we're getting too smart at curing diseases. Pretty soon Mother Nature's going to have to send a doozy and cause an 9.5 eathquake in the Atlantic ocean. The tsunami should thin out the population a bit. Luckily we'll all be safe here in Alberta.

Yeah ... the beach front property will be nice.

This all kind of puts a different spin on the old saying "I stand to be corrected" though eh.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Which is why I ask for specifics so I can evaluate it myself. Talking heads and news folk (especially those trying to confirm an ideology rather than finding scientific truth) rarely have the ability to evaluate it. Anyone who knows anything about science knows how bad journalists are at reporting anything to do with science.

You gave me a link to a crapload of data. You tell me to go download it and figure it out. I'm not a climate scientist.

I gave you a link to the CRU developer's code and comments. You dismiss it as too long (billion lines of text) to be bothered with. Heck, you're even a programmer.

Originally Posted by photon

No, I linked to it, and the CRU people confirmed that that's how much has been available for years.

Well sure everyone could be lying, but if you want to get into the realm of crazy global conspiracy start some other thread.

I'm beginning to think you haven't really looked at the content of the emails or source code. The CRU seem to be lying and they're plugged in with many, many other scientists around the globe. Plus the key players in this little situation are key contributors to each IPCC report. This is global and people are...well...loose with the truth (perhaps downright lying - yet to be proven.) What do you think "climategate" means?

Originally Posted by photon

It'd be easy enough for someone to confirm or deny too.. get the set of data claimed to be the 95%. Start gathering data from the original meteorological station sources and compare the two. If someone thinks that the are lying about 95% being available (meaning they think they are lying about their source data and used made up data to begin with), this would be how they would find it out.

That "someone" is the Met Office which expects to take three years to address. Easy peasy! Until they've performed this activity shouldn't we all just take a pill.

Originally Posted by photon

I haven't dismissed it, I've asked for specifics about this repeatedly. Which programmer? Where does the programmer say this? How do you expect me to discuss or evaluate this claim without any information? I ask you for details, you ignore that request and then accuse me of things? That hardly seems reasonable.

Well, I can't make you read the links I've posted. You not reading them does not mean I'm ignoring your requests.

Originally Posted by photon

Which shady practices? Again be specific.

You know this kind of thing makes any kind of reasonable discussion difficult. It hasn't been demonstrated that the science behind HADCRUT3 is dishonest.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...on_the_deceit/

It doesn't really pass the smell test. That's my opinion and many others. Doesn't mean it is true yet, but it should be looked into. Considering it is one of the key pillars of AGW science, an investigation should be mandatory.

Originally Posted by photon

Anyway, first, if you want to know why the Met Office is doing what they are doing, ask them, I'm sure I don't know. Public pressure? Second, what you say make no sense since the Met Office says they re-doing the analysis of the data. Which doesn't have anything to do with the data being available or not ya.. you're mixing up analysing raw data with having that raw data.. the Met Office couldn't analyse the data if they didn't have it now could they?

If you read the link I gave you, you'd know. And you're playing in semantics here. Since CRU has eradicated the raw data, we are left to accept the claim that all their raw data really exists elsewhere. Fine. Accepted. Now someone has to reengineer the steps taken over the last decade (or more) to understand how CRU got the conclusions they did. Since they purge datasets, you can't even test against the stages of work performed over the last decade. Is this proper "science?" Doesn't proper science include the ability to replicate the process?

Originally Posted by photon

You never assumed I was a climate scientist, to say that in the way you are is just inflammatory and useless to the conversation. If you don't want any real content to the discussion then please just say so, no need to employ silly comments like that.

You said I don't understand it or don't have the patience to evaluate it, but you haven't provided what I'm supposed to understand or have the patience to evaluate! So I'll ask one more time, which comments in which code?

True, that was inflammatory. I apologize. I was frustrated that you don't actually read any content I provide. I sent you the link to the dang code a couple pages back.

Why don't we attempt to reengage a sense of humor (or, at least, levity) in this debate before we all stomp off to our rooms and sulk?

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

You gave me a link to a crapload of data. You tell me to go download it and figure it out. I'm not a climate scientist.

I gave you a link to the CRU developer's code and comments. You dismiss it as too long (billion lines of text) to be bothered with. Heck, you're even a programmer.

I didn't say to download and figure it out, I just gave the link to where the data is available because you said it had been deleted. That's substantially different than saying a comment in a code exists and says something specific and then link to the huge text file.

Originally Posted by zuluking

I'm beginning to think you haven't really looked at the content of the emails or source code. The CRU seem to be lying and they're plugged in with many, many other scientists around the globe. Plus the key players in this little situation are key contributors to each IPCC report. This is global and people are...well...loose with the truth (perhaps downright lying - yet to be proven.) What do you think "climategate" means?

I have looked at the content of some of the emails and source code, but a very small percentage of it. I'm not the one making claims about what they say, I'm letting the investigation run its course before drawing conclusions.

Here you say they seem to be lying, they deserve substantiation for that. I can say you are lying but of course you're going to want me to give some evidence for that, right? They should be granted the same.

"Climategate" so far seem to be a media frenzy with little substance. The only emails I've seen presented in the media have been the same three over and over and over where it's been shown they've been vastly misinterpreted.

What I am trying to get from you or anyone else is actual specifics about what lies have been told, what data has actually been lost, or what code actually shows corruption of data.

If I say "you lied to me", the FIRST question out of your mouth will be "What did I say?" or "When did I lie.". You will want specifics. That's all I'm asking for.

Originally Posted by zuluking

That "someone" is the Met Office which expects to take three years to address. Easy peasy! Until they've performed this activity shouldn't we all just take a pill.

The Met Office said they're going to redo the analysis on their own, not verify that the data publicly available is actually the data that the CRU used, so it's still two different thing.

Additional confirmations make better science of course.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Well, I can't make you read the links I've posted. You not reading them does not mean I'm ignoring your requests.

I've read all the links you've posted, except for the huge text file. I'm not going to take days to read and understand all of that looking for some specific comment or code, I'm not the one making the claim.

Originally Posted by zuluking

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...on_the_deceit/

It doesn't really pass the smell test. That's my opinion and many others. Doesn't mean it is true yet, but it should be looked into. Considering it is one of the key pillars of AGW science, an investigation should be mandatory.

Funny thing about "smell tests" is they're easily biased by the person doing the smelling. That's why courts use evidence instead of smell tests.

But I've already said in this thread that I do support an investigation, and one has already been announced. People are people and make mistakes, but to jump in the middle of email conversations without any context (and without any understanding of the bigger picture of things) is foolish IMO.

Not complying with a FOI request, for example, might look bad, but if you find out that a hundred vexatious FOI requests were submitted designed to basically waste their time, it looks different then. Not saying that's exactly what happened or that it's right to refuse the 101st (that's what an investigation is for), but just saying context is important.

EDIT: BTW this link is more interesting because it actually covers some different emails than the ones the media keep jumping on. Though the author of those emails seems to be satisfied with the outcome of those exchanges, and reading the emails without the greater context does seem to lend itself to misinterpretation. I'll look at that link further, this is more along the lines of what I've been asking for.

Originally Posted by zuluking

If you read the link I gave you, you'd know.

I don't think it actually says why. It says that public confidence is shattered, which supports my speculation of public pressure, but it doesn't go so far as to say "they are reanalysing because of public pressure" or "they are reanalysing because they believe the CRU data corrupt".

Originally Posted by zuluking

Since CRU has eradicated the raw data, we are left to accept the claim that all their raw data really exists elsewhere. Fine. Accepted. Now someone has to reengineer the steps taken over the last decade (or more) to understand how CRU got the conclusions they did. Since they purge datasets, you can't even test against the stages of work performed over the last decade. Is this proper "science?" Doesn't proper science include the ability to replicate the process?

You don't have to have intermediate data-sets to be able to compare a finished product with one you've done yourself using the same processes. And the processes they used would have been documented in the relevant papers. If those processes aren't in the papers then I would agree yes there was some gaps in what should have been done, but such papers generally would not have been accepted.

I'm not willing to go out into all these papers that have been gone over by thousands of scientists; I accept that science works and is self correcting (because it's proven to be so in the past). At some point I stop digging and wait for the results of the investigation.

I'm not saying in any of my posts that there was no problem, all I've ever been after is support for the claims being made.

Originally Posted by zuluking

True, that was inflammatory. I apologize. I was frustrated that you don't actually read any content I provide. I sent you the link to the dang code a couple pages back.

And you appreciate why I'm not going to sift through it all to find a few lines of code or comments?

Originally Posted by zuluking

Why don't we attempt to reengage a sense of humor (or, at least, levity) in this debate before we all stomp off to our rooms and sulk?

Sure, but I don't think I've been upset and I won't stop asking for support for things.