Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

I have no idea how

 

There, in that very short, succint post is the crux of the matter.

 

 

Neither do the 'scientists'

[convert]

Even the Danes admit that the science has been hijacked by the politicians.

 

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece

 

“Unfortunately I seem to experience that scientists say: ‘We have a theory’ – then that crosses the road to the politicians who say: ‘We know’. Who can be bothered to hear a scientist who says ‘I have a theory’ when politicians go around saying ‘I know’”.

[Funky_Gibbon]

Funny enough they don't. However, David Icke isn't taking my hard earned cash in green taxes is he.

 

The only conspiracy that I can see is one to manipluate data to a pre-agreed agenda, an attempt to control the peer review proccess and silence the voices that question the dogma of MMGW. A Conspiracy to evade FOI requests, and to greenwash the public.

 

As has been said, read the emails and look at the model code (Just this alone will have most people gasping in shock at the blatant fudge factors used by the CRU to 'influence' the IPCC and gain funding for themselves).

 

PS I get no funding from big oil, in fact I probably contribute quite heavily to their funds.

 

You see these conspiracies but it doesn't mean they exist. Picking a few sentences out of thousands of emails as evidence of a global conspiracy because they fit into the narrative you want to believe doesn't prove anything.

 

As has been explained ad infinitum, they cannot release anything via FOI requests that they don't own and a lot of the data requested is actually third party data they have no right to release.

 

I've read the emails . There's nothing there if you look at the context they were written in rather than decide the context beforehand (massive global conspiracy) and cherrypick anything that potentially fits.

 

The model code you mention is actually commented out, it doesn't run as part of the model and has no affect on the results of the model.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

[convert]

You see these conspiracies but it doesn't mean they exist. Picking a few sentences out of thousands of emails as evidence of a global conspiracy because they fit into the narrative you want to believe doesn't prove anything.

 

As has been explained ad infinitum, they cannot release anything via FOI requests that they don't own and a lot of the data requested is actually third party data they have no right to release.

 

I've read the emails . There's nothing there if you look at the context they were written in rather than decide the context beforehand (massive global conspiracy) and cherrypick anything that potentially fits.

 

The model code you mention is actually commented out, it doesn't run as part of the model and has no affect on the results of the model.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

 

The only ones cherypicking here are the CRU, the IPCC and all the global warming alarmists.

 

However, I'm quite prepared to accept that the science isn't settled yet, are you?

[nightrider]

You see these conspiracies but it doesn't mean they exist. Picking a few sentences out of thousands of emails as evidence of a global conspiracy because they fit into the narrative you want to believe doesn't prove anything.

 

As has been explained ad infinitum, they cannot release anything via FOI requests that they don't own and a lot of the data requested is actually third party data they have no right to release.

 

I've read the emails . There's nothing there if you look at the context they were written in rather than decide the context beforehand (massive global conspiracy) and cherrypick anything that potentially fits.

 

The model code you mention is actually commented out, it doesn't run as part of the model and has no affect on the results of the model.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

 

how do you know it was commented out when they made their paper? I routinely comment out code if I want to test something quickly. If someone just took my code and claimed it said anything about how some final result was made it would not be useful, but since I always document which cvs version was used anyone could see how I did things.

 

I heard the CRU does not use any versioning history (cvs,svn etc) so no way to tell which version of their code was used because it is not documented....is this true? If so all we have is their word they did things properly when they published their paper.

[truman]

If so all we have is their word they did things properly when they published their paper.

 

Which is by no means certain given what has recently come to light....

[convert]

how do you know it was commented out when they made their paper? I routinely comment out code if I want to test something quickly. If someone just took my code and claimed it said anything about how some final result was made it would not be useful, but since I always document which cvs version was used anyone could see how I did things.

 

I heard the CRU does not use any versioning history (cvs,svn etc) so no way to tell which version of their code was used because it is not documented....is this true? If so all we have is their word they did things properly when they published their paper.

 

It's OK, we can trust them...

 

 

They're the 'experts'

[truman]

You see these conspiracies but it doesn't mean they exist. Picking a few sentences out of thousands of emails as evidence of a global conspiracy because they fit into the narrative you want to believe doesn't prove anything.

 

As has been explained ad infinitum, they cannot release anything via FOI requests that they don't own and a lot of the data requested is actually third party data they have no right to release.

 

I've read the emails . There's nothing there if you look at the context they were written in rather than decide the context beforehand (massive global conspiracy) and cherrypick anything that potentially fits.

 

The model code you mention is actually commented out, it doesn't run as part of the model and has no affect on the results of the model.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

 

Here's another one for you

 

"..At 03:01 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:

 

thanks for that Mike - sorry but just a few more questions

the reference to "agree remarkably well with the proxy-based reconstructions (Figure 1)

" [later part of paragraph ] . Unfortunately , the Bauer et al curve clearly does not -

at least from AD 1100 to 1400!

Again some qualifyer is needed - perhaps "for the most part , agree well " ?

 

Yes, "remarkably" is an overstatement given that, as you say, Bauer et al does stray

some bit.

How about simply:

"Agree with the proxy-based reconstructions within estimated uncertainties (Figure 1)"..."

 

To me this looks like they're trying to hide the fact that a set of data doesn't follow the model and looking for a way of presenting it so that it appears to...

 

What do you think?

[splodgeyAl]

Here's another one for you

 

"..At 03:01 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:

 

thanks for that Mike - sorry but just a few more questions

the reference to "agree remarkably well with the proxy-based reconstructions (Figure 1)

" [later part of paragraph ] . Unfortunately , the Bauer et al curve clearly does not -

at least from AD 1100 to 1400!

Again some qualifyer is needed - perhaps "for the most part , agree well " ?

 

Yes, "remarkably" is an overstatement given that, as you say, Bauer et al does stray

some bit.

How about simply:

"Agree with the proxy-based reconstructions within estimated uncertainties (Figure 1)"..."

 

To me this looks like they're trying to hide the fact that a set of data doesn't follow the model and looking for a way of presenting it so that it appears to...

 

What do you think?

 

It looks remarkably like discussing changing some (out of context) wording from "remarkably well" to "within estimated uncertainties". ie the opposite of what you suggest

[truman]

It looks remarkably like discussing changing some (out of context) wording from "remarkably well" to "within estimated uncertainties". ie the opposite of what you suggest

 

What is an estimated uncertainty?