The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > No fraud in hacked climate emails > Comments

No fraud in hacked climate emails : Comments

By Geoff Davies, published 18/1/2010

There is no basis for claims that the case for human-caused global warming has collapsed, nor that any climate scientists have been discredited.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
that's the whole point esykes, perceptions are harder to correct once they are established, as any additional data only tends to reinforce the perception.

The perception may be incorrect, but then that's an additional hurdle for the party concerned isn't it?

The perception may be correct too.

The problem for climate science is that they have let this come about isn't it?

Weather forecasters have enough problems with credibility, and climate prophets are going to have even more now.

Skeptics on the other hand, are quite correct to doubt the way they do.
Posted by odo, Monday, 18 January 2010 11:42:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How desperately people like Davies want to believe the scam can go on and on, at least until they retire (and a big hello to dear old Andy, also at the ANU) .

And quoting Pew as an authority on anything?

Pretending it's all just a misunderstanding brings no credit to our wamist clowns.

The CRU at East Anglia University should be closed down, along with the Hadley Centre. And the UK Met Office is about to lose the BBC as a client because its predictions have been so far off the mark.

A vast left-wing conspiracy to promote global warming among the frozen.

We know about Mann-made global warming in the US. Now there's a new scandal which has apparently and typically been given no attention in the Australian MSM. See here: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

These trans Atlantic warmists should be looking at jail time.
Posted by KenH, Monday, 18 January 2010 11:43:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm *so* over this examining the gnat's testicles on this one.
So the man in a *private* conversation was a little extravagant/imprecise/sloppy with his language.

As for the 'trick'= the methodology. Hide= eliminate. Neither alternative is necessarily intrinsically insidious, it's all in the context and provable only by the consequential actions. (interpretive at best circumstantial)

I wrote an email recently to my son over one of his stirring antics, I threatened to remove his manhood with a rusty razor. Is he in danger? I *don't* think so. More banter or male chest beating on my part.

Who amongst us, in private, hasn't meaninglessly threatened something as a means of venting, because something/someone annoyed us.
Let's get real he, is a man with all the petty emotions that entails.

The proof is in, *did he?* No. To me, it was a sign of irritation/annoyance full stop.

All this Freudian examination of the man's semantics and his pet's entrails is a bit interpretive and frankly, inquisitorial medieval.

Since when is perception fact? let alone objective proof. Not in any rational world I know.

I'm amused by some of the comments, talk about calling the kettle black. Many of the posters are, of course, paragons of objectivity and rational scientific reasoning (*NOT*).

Clearly, most are talking recalcitrant opinion, no fact required and seeing what *they* want to see. Show me the actual frauds or the destruction not (again) private, chest beating threats and sloppy wording. Where is the proof.
______________________________________
Steven

Idiom changes from country to country, These emails were as much scientific documents as an after conference drinks conversation in the bar. Remind me, to frisk you for recorders if we ever meet for a wine or three. :-| eew!
Posted by examinator, Monday, 18 January 2010 11:57:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another whitewash from none other than the ANU boffin who abolished economics; he should have offered his services to Bernard Madoff. The "trick" proposed by Phil Jones that Geoff defends is the combination of proxy (tree-ring) "temperatures" to 1960 with instrumentals thereafter in the SAME curve was to cover up - yes COVERUP - that Jones' tree rings did not correlate with actual temperatures after 1960 or so, and showed relative cooling rather than ever upward warming. If the tree rings are wrong now, why were they right about temperatures in 1066?

Geoff's paper speaks volumes for what passes as academic integrity in Canberra.
Posted by Tom Tiddler, Monday, 18 January 2010 12:29:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bad timing, Mr Davies

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171

"The IPCC report claimed that the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish inside 30 years... suggesting the melting of the glaciers was "very likely". The IPCC defines "very likely" as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent."

And where did this scary information originate?

"the New Scientist report was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Mr Hasnain, who was then the chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research."

Well, fancy that.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 18 January 2010 12:32:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
odo: "Face it, there is now a growing perception of a culture of corruption in this science,"

Garbage, I am a scientist, and I would and have given up my position because of corruption, and it wasn't the scientists, but the liberal minded capitalistic pig greedy mongrels who put the mighty dollar even before human life. I know, I have seen it.

You know them, they are even fighting climate change policy because it will hit them where they hurt, in their fat capitalistic liberal fundamentalist wallets, that became pornographically stuffed with money by raping our land, sea, water ways and air.

I quick drive around rural Australia and you will see where all the liars are, the way our farmers have (unknowingly, heh I was one of them till I woke up) stripped our country of nearly all it's vegetation, damed up all the creeks and streams so our once mighty inland rivers are now just dry gullies.

If any of you opportunistic, gluttonous, greedy and uninformed commentators where to open your eyes and take a reasonable look, you would realise that in another 100 years we wont be able to breath. Oh you wont be here, you and your fat wallets will have finished using and abusing what gifts you say your God gave you and will be with him.

But my grandson will be alive, and by my oath, I will fight until I have been clawed to death. Then I'll come back and haunt anyone who will help this greedy, self centered bunch of no-all no-nothings from letting us clean up the mess you have made while filling your BMW's with petrol or your yachts with diesel.
Posted by Wybong, Monday, 18 January 2010 12:37:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy