Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
"Climategate" two years later
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="thaumaturgy" data-source="post: 58889764" data-attributes="member: 169303"><p>The part I like about this post is that <strong>I did exactly what you asked me to do</strong> and yet you blow right past that and go on.</p><p> </p><p>I like that about these "demands" from Skeptoids. "Gimme this!" You give them that and it is as if it just never happened.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Hold it a minute, <strong>didn't you read my post?</strong> Repeated investigation has found no fraudulent manipulation of data, and so there is no reason to question the validity of the data in the absence of malfeasance!</p><p> </p><p>Why do you <em>assume</em> lack of objectivity when no such bias has been found in treatment of the data?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Ummmm, yeah, I have been working as an industrial Research and Development Chemist for the past 11 years and prior to that did two chemistry postdocs over the course of 5 years, so I'm kinda familiar with that.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Well, let's see what the Penn investigation of Michael Mann found:</p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span> </p><p>Now of course the idea of "transparency" in scientific investigation does not require that YOU know at all point where everything is at at any point. Just as you don't have the right to know what I'm currently investigating.</p><p> </p><p>BUT when I publish it it is expected that the science will be clearly and honestly laid out.</p><p> </p><p>To my knowledge that has been the case for all the investigations so far conducted.</p><p> </p><p>You can't make declarations about people's Objectivity unless you have found something in the published science that indicates they have hidden or fraudulently manipulated the data.</p><p> </p><p><strong>AGAIN: SO FAR NO INVESTIGATION OF THE MULTITUDE OF INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS HAS FOUND ANY EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF DATA.</strong></p><p> </p><p>If you posit otherwise, please provide evidence for the claim.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Leeds CRU? What are you talking about here? The CRU is at University of East Anglia. </p><p> </p><p>HINT: GET A MAP OF ENGLAND!</p><p> </p><p>Leeds is only 177 miles from Norwich where UEA is at.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Well, I'm not sure what "Leeds CRU" is, so I'll have to address the overall concept of "repeatability" in climate science.</p><p> </p><p>Let's take the hockey stick graph. It has been "repeatedly" found in numerous data sets. Over and over again using <u><em>different</em> </u>proxies and data set.</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p> </p><p>(<a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html" target="_blank">SOURCE</a>)</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>How about Speleothem data?</p><p> </p><p><img src="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/fig1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>(<a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html" target="_blank">SOURCE</a>)</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Where is this "Leed's CRU" of which you speak? I've been to Leeds now about 4 or so times. I missed it! If I get to go back I've got to visit this place!</p><p> </p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The fact is the e-mails show people being <em>human</em>. As I said I am curious if I were to steal all the e-mails off your harddrive or that you ever sent, could I make you look bad by taking various things you said about others out of context? Could I find cases where you were fed up with someone such that you said something unseemly?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">I bet I could.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>So don't they have to commit an actual crime to be found guilty of that crime?</p><p> </p><p>What a wonderful world! </p><p> </p><p>Geography along with Justice seems to be of no value to some folks!</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Well, when Leeds CRU starts publishing stuff, maybe they'll do better than the Climate Research Unit (often refered to as the CRU) does down 177 miles away at University of East Anglia in Norwich.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="thaumaturgy, post: 58889764, member: 169303"] The part I like about this post is that [B]I did exactly what you asked me to do[/B] and yet you blow right past that and go on. I like that about these "demands" from Skeptoids. "Gimme this!" You give them that and it is as if it just never happened. Hold it a minute, [B]didn't you read my post?[/B] Repeated investigation has found no fraudulent manipulation of data, and so there is no reason to question the validity of the data in the absence of malfeasance! Why do you [I]assume[/I] lack of objectivity when no such bias has been found in treatment of the data? Ummmm, yeah, I have been working as an industrial Research and Development Chemist for the past 11 years and prior to that did two chemistry postdocs over the course of 5 years, so I'm kinda familiar with that. Well, let's see what the Penn investigation of Michael Mann found: [SIZE=3] [/SIZE] Now of course the idea of "transparency" in scientific investigation does not require that YOU know at all point where everything is at at any point. Just as you don't have the right to know what I'm currently investigating. BUT when I publish it it is expected that the science will be clearly and honestly laid out. To my knowledge that has been the case for all the investigations so far conducted. You can't make declarations about people's Objectivity unless you have found something in the published science that indicates they have hidden or fraudulently manipulated the data. [B]AGAIN: SO FAR NO INVESTIGATION OF THE MULTITUDE OF INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS HAS FOUND ANY EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF DATA.[/B] If you posit otherwise, please provide evidence for the claim. Leeds CRU? What are you talking about here? The CRU is at University of East Anglia. HINT: GET A MAP OF ENGLAND! Leeds is only 177 miles from Norwich where UEA is at. Well, I'm not sure what "Leeds CRU" is, so I'll have to address the overall concept of "repeatability" in climate science. Let's take the hockey stick graph. It has been "repeatedly" found in numerous data sets. Over and over again using [U][I]different[/I] [/U]proxies and data set. [IMG]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg[/IMG] ([URL="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html"]SOURCE[/URL]) How about Speleothem data? [IMG]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/fig1.jpg[/IMG] ([URL="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html"]SOURCE[/URL]) [I][/I] Where is this "Leed's CRU" of which you speak? I've been to Leeds now about 4 or so times. I missed it! If I get to go back I've got to visit this place! [INDENT][I][/I] The fact is the e-mails show people being [I]human[/I]. As I said I am curious if I were to steal all the e-mails off your harddrive or that you ever sent, could I make you look bad by taking various things you said about others out of context? Could I find cases where you were fed up with someone such that you said something unseemly? I bet I could. [/INDENT] So don't they have to commit an actual crime to be found guilty of that crime? What a wonderful world! Geography along with Justice seems to be of no value to some folks! Well, when Leeds CRU starts publishing stuff, maybe they'll do better than the Climate Research Unit (often refered to as the CRU) does down 177 miles away at University of East Anglia in Norwich. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
"Climategate" two years later
Top
Bottom