to the absent rpg

I'm sorry to se that you're quitting just as things were getting interesting. I will assume that others are interested in the matters that you've raised.

The point I was trying to make was that a lot of these emails go back a long time, and contained personal in-talk. If you've never said anything in private that you wouldn't want heard in public then you're a unique human, if not a saint. This stuff was digitised personal chat- the idea that this stuff is public domain is relatively new- hence my comments about corporate people being more circumspect these days.

A comparable situation was in my time as a senior public servant- back in the '80s we all carried big red note books and wrote copious notes at ministerial meetings- with the belief that the notes would help us do our job better. By the end of the '90s the note books had disappeared because they were considered "public record" and were used and abused by oppositions. The only thing that was recorded was the agreed outcome of the meeting. Hence the rise of the notion of "plausible deniability"- the Minister could deny that he/she was informed and there was no record to prove otherwise.

By exposing private emails (as distinct from emails that are clearly intended to be formal information) we are closing down a vital component of creativity.

As an illustration of this, would rpg like to come out from behind his/her codename so we can see who it really is who jumps to conclusions and slags people on the basis of a few paras in OLO. We use these codenames so that we can explore ideas with a degree of immunity- OLO, I am sure, is trying to advance public discourse, not provide a gaffiti wall for frusrated people.

BTW- would you like Phil James to sue you for defamation re your accusation? It's quite plausible that he could, although you assume that because you said it on OLO you are exempt and immune- like the assumptions made by the scientists at CRU.

Stern,

Being able to see through spin doesn't qualify you as an expert on the validity of a whole branch of science.

I can see through spin too. i.e. Labelling climatology as a 'pseudo-science' is classic spin, especially when inaction is advocated on the basis of economic 'science'. Having a commerce degree I have a fair understanding of the plethora of variables that plague economic forecasting.

If you cannot acknowledge the amount of evidence currently available concerning the prospective risk of global warming as being sufficient to warrant considering it as being possible; if you are saying "I won't be convinced until it is 100% proven"; then you are being more than just cynical. It is denying it, pure and simple. And, considering you are in this forum PUSHING your opinion on it, fighting of minute details and pulling inconsequential holes in people's arguments, that tells me that not only are you denying the possibility, but you're being DOGMATIC about your stance too.

Amicus, disproving a negative is difficult? I'm not asking you to do that, although I'm pretty sure that just means proving the positive, which depends on how much evidence you have. I think you mean proving a negative is difficult, true? Which i'm not asking for either...

I'm asking people to read articles/papers that support both sides of the debate, not just those those that support their own position. It's difficult to do, I know it. Very rarely do I meet someone who has a very strong opinion about something who has actually done this sort of balanced investigation

Jedimaster, I think you may have been distracted by the CRU emails. It is the other information released along with these files that contain the real deceit.

A Person or persons within the CRU were so concerned with the way this research was being conducted, that they released not only all the questionable files but intentionally added “pointers” to all the things that were, in their view as a professional(s), scientifically unacceptable.

The “HARRY_READ_ME” files contained within the CRU files point directly to, and provide examples of, lost/deleted data, arbitrary data insertion, data duplication, flawed modeling applications, lack of data integrity and corrupted data bases. None of these issues has been addressed or explained by any of the inquiries and this is why the science and the reviews are being questioned.

I posted the following on another thread. If you don’t wish to look at the other side of the scientific debate or question your own, that’s fine, that’s your decision. May I suggest then, that you look at AGW as a phenomenon?

Green/Armstrong audited the IPCC’s forecasting procedures (December 7, 2009) against the evidence based forecasting principles. They also compared the AGW alarmism to 26 other analogous alarms since 1798 none of which eventuated. Of the 89 applicable forecasting principles, the IPCC violated 72. They concluded that:

“Our analysis of the 26 analogies leads us to the following forecasts about the global warming movement:

1. The predicted disasters will not occur.
2. Costly government policies will continue to be implemented in response to the alarm.
3. The manmade global warming political movement will dissipate over the years.
4. Many government programs will remain in place.”

You seem to be one of the few warmers that remain belligerent but are not looking for an exit strategy.

Perhaps it’s time you started looking

Spindoc

Clearly, you have looked into the CRU situation much deeper than I have. There are 3 issues here- one is whether the CRU scientists cooked their books, the second is whether the CRU data makes any difference to the AGW conclusions and the third is the main issue that I am tackling on skepticism vs cynicism.

On the first, three reviews have exonerated them scientifically- but chided their language and transparency. When are the hackers, or their fellow travellers going to come up with a similar level of review which points to fraud rather than - as far as I have read- a lot of juicy, inconsequential bits and pieces. As a skeptic, I await your report, because I can't accept your claims until you do.

I understand that the CRU data is only one of about 5 data sets around the world that essentially agree with CRU's AGW claims- are the other groups doing the same? Again, as a skeptic, I must await proof.

On the third matter, I can't identify any point where I have not stuck to the point of the essay- where have I been belligerent, other than insisting on being a skeptic? I'm not a band-wagoner for any band or wagon. I insist on seeing the evidence- and I like it dished up according to Galieo and Popper's rules of empiricism, not Protagoras's rules of sophistry- amongst which is the art of tackling the person, not the subject.

I must say I really feel for Socrates- there seem to be a lot of cynics around all too ready to administer the hemlock to skeptics who insist on seeing data connected by logic and reason.

Jedimaster, this has been a fast moving issue however, you do seem to be many months behind the key events. You refer to the “ill-gotten hacked emails” and that the “criminal hacker who has betrayed the trust of these scientists” should be turned over.

They should be turned over but there is a problem, the criminal(s) are from within Professor Phil Jones own unit. That is why the terms of reference for the various “inquiries” were narrowed to include only professional probity not the science or methods.
On December 28, 2009, Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen, the chief UNIX systems administrator for the PW Group, a major Canadian publishing firm, generated a detailed forensic analysis of the released e-mails and “the files”.
PW Groups analysis of the file headers, footers, digital fingerprints and audit trail data confirmed that these files were not “hacked”. The files were digitally tracked to “archive”, as would be expected of up to ten year old emails. The rest of the files and data however, were very current

They can only have been deliberately sent or physically loaded onto a server from archive with a file location identifier supplied to an external source so they could be accessed. The action to “restore from archive” is an administrator function requiring “root level authority”, high level security access. Add to this the fact that data fingerprinting confirms that this entire file was sent to a BBC location two weeks prior to the files being made public.

Continued:

Continued:

The emails are a (deliberate) distraction because they are the only “defendable” part of Phil Jones saga. For those who insist that all were “exonerated” I can only suggest the absence of objectivity.

You say you await my report on the emails? You will have a long wait. Like I said they are a diversion, if you want to reach rock bottom and then start digging, be my guest.

The main indictment of wholesale deceit is in the files, not the emails. As I have just evidenced. You might ask yourself the question, why would a high level insider at the CRU leak these damaging indictments?

To your three points,

Was the CRU cooking the books? Well according to one of “their own” at a high level, the answer is absolutely yes. What is it about the HARRY_READ_ME files you are not getting?

Whether the CRU data makes any difference to the AGW conclusions? Whose conclusions?

The only official internationally recognized and politically sponsored assessments on AGW are the UN’s IPCC. The main contributors to the IPCC assessments are the UK MET. Office, the CRU and Pennsylvania State University (Michael Mann). Just look at the state of the CRU systems as detailed by “Harry” and tell me if you would fly in a 747 built by these systems? You work it out.

Your third point you say is your main issue, “tackling skepticism vs cynicism”. I have two comments. Why? And good luck.