Ion01 1 #401 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuote What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective. Data shouldn't be inaccessible, but neither should it be available on demand until the researchers have analyzed it, verified it and are ready to present it. Do you make all your firm's working documents available on demand to anyone that wants to see them? So we shouldn't be allowed the freedom of having information until the elitist controlling scientist who must protect thier own interests have "analyzed" (manipulated is the more correct term) first. All that does is allow them to do exactly what has happened with this whole climate gate thing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #402 December 15, 2009 I got another tasty morsel for you! "I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance. I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening. It created a climate in which violence took place. I wish that we would all curb our enthusiasm with some of the statements being made, understanding that some of the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause." - Nancy Pilosi So when the violent people showed up in Copenhagen to demand action be taken to stop global warming and they were throwing bricks and such is she and al gore going to take responsibility for thier talks and fearmongering. What about thier blatent lies like the temperature prediction and such gore made. No. It is only the conservative that we must fear. Does anyone remember the DHS report? It is the people who think government is too big and we should follow the constitution we should free violence from....not the ones who think it needs to be bigger and should be by any means necessary..... not the ones who think things like laws inumerated in the constitution are the only thing standing in the way of what they call "progress". No it is the ones who think we should follow the law that you should fear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #403 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective. Data shouldn't be inaccessible, but neither should it be available on demand until the researchers have analyzed it, verified it and are ready to present it. Do you make all your firm's working documents available on demand to anyone that wants to see them? So we shouldn't be allowed the freedom of having information until the elitist controlling scientist who must protect thier own interests have "analyzed" (manipulated is the more correct term) first. All that does is allow them to do exactly what has happened with this whole climate gate thing! Clearly you both misunderstand what science is and what science does (well, your many previous posts about evolution demonstrated that already, so nothing new there), AND you haven't been following the investigations into what the stolen emails actually revealed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #404 December 15, 2009 And you would know what I have been following or what I know of science how? Of course, resort to the typical personal attacks instead of evidence or the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #405 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective. Data shouldn't be inaccessible, but neither should it be available on demand until the researchers have analyzed it, verified it and are ready to present it. Do you make all your firm's working documents available on demand to anyone that wants to see them? So we shouldn't be allowed the freedom of having information until the elitist controlling scientist who must protect thier own interests have "analyzed" (manipulated is the more correct term) first. All that does is allow them to do exactly what has happened with this whole climate gate thing! Clearly you both misunderstand what science is and what science does (well, your many previous posts about evolution demonstrated that already, so nothing new there), AND you haven't been following the investigations into what the stolen emails actually revealed. First off it is believed they were leaked emails. You loved this type of crap when Newts phone calls were taped huh Second, this post shows a clear understanding of what you call science has become. And here again you show yourself as defending the fraud. And these emails have shown the duplicity of the funding barbs you and yours throw out constantly"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #406 December 15, 2009 QuoteAnd you would know what I have been following or what I know of science how? Of course, resort to the typical personal attacks instead of evidence or the facts. That is what those like kallend do. They attack belittle people to try and make people shut up Know there are many more than those who post here that agree with you . Keep it in thier face, (you know, like Obama told his supporter to do) and dont get slapped down by the soldiers of the AWG faith"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #407 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective. Data shouldn't be inaccessible, but neither should it be available on demand until the researchers have analyzed it, verified it and are ready to present it. Do you make all your firm's working documents available on demand to anyone that wants to see them? So we shouldn't be allowed the freedom of having information until the elitist controlling scientist who must protect thier own interests have "analyzed" (manipulated is the more correct term) first. All that does is allow them to do exactly what has happened with this whole climate gate thing! Clearly you both misunderstand what science is and what science does (well, your many previous posts about evolution demonstrated that already, so nothing new there), AND you haven't been following the investigations into what the stolen emails actually revealed. I know what science is SUPPOSED to be.... and AGW aint it. Unless, of course, fudging the data, hiding the data and squashing dissent is considered 'science' these days.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #408 December 15, 2009 QuoteI know what science is SUPPOSED to be.... and AGW aint it. That's correct, in the same sense that a bridge is not engineering. OTOH, AGW is a product of (valid) science, just as a bridge is a product of engineering.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #409 December 15, 2009 QuoteAGW is a product of (valid) science I refer you back to the SECOND sentence of my reply.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #410 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAGW is a product of (valid) science I refer you back to the SECOND sentence of my reply. Unfortunately for your argument, those things have not been shown to happen, despite what you might read on some right-wing blog ranting about "Climategate." Don't believe me? Factcheck it for yourself.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #411 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAGW is a product of (valid) science I refer you back to the SECOND sentence of my reply. Unfortunately for your argument, those things have not been shown to happen, despite what you might read on some right-wing blog ranting about "Climategate." Don't believe me? here.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #412 December 15, 2009 Quote You whining about 'some right-wing blog' then mentioning factcheck is fucking hilarious. If you're claiming Factcheck.org is significantly biased, then you're only demonstrating that you don't really understand what media bias is.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #413 December 15, 2009 Quote Quote You whining about 'some right-wing blog' then mentioning factcheck is fucking hilarious. If you're claiming Factcheck.org is significantly biased, then you're only demonstrating that you don't really understand what media bias is. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #414 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAGW is a product of (valid) science I refer you back to the SECOND sentence of my reply. Unfortunately for your argument, those things have not been shown to happen, despite what you might read on some right-wing blog ranting about "Climategate." Don't believe me? here. Have you found a site where they list the doc and spread sheets in a simular fashion? I have them but they are a pain to go through"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #415 December 15, 2009 No, I haven't. You can find the 'harry read me' file on scribd, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 388 #416 December 17, 2009 Too easy... Given the choice of hyperbole or supstance you jump to the former. Try to deal with the supstance. Oh thats rite u cant. (now attack my spuling und puntuation) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #417 December 17, 2009 QuoteToo easy... Given the choice of hyperbole or supstance you jump to the former. Try to deal with the supstance. Oh thats rite u cant. (now attack my spuling und puntuation) Stop behaving like a 4th grader if you want a serious response.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 388 #418 December 17, 2009 fair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 388 #419 December 17, 2009 Oh one more thing, I keep it at a fourth grade level so you can keep up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #420 December 17, 2009 Quotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #421 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #422 December 17, 2009 And it contiunues CRU is looking like a real research group huh Quote 'CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data', says Russian http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/ Quote Newly released info probed as Climategate, um, snowballs By Lewis Page • Get more from this author Posted in Environment, 17th December 2009 11:29 GMT A prominent Russian climate sceptic and free-market economist says that the British HadCRUT global temperature database - much of which has now been released to the public following the "climategate" email scandal - has been manipulated to show greater warming in Russia than is actually the case. Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to then-Russian President Putin, is head of his own thinktank in Moscow, the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA). He is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian American thinktank. He has always been a climate sceptic, having vigorously opposed Russia's signing up to the Kyoto protocols. On Tuesday, Illarionov released the following report (pdf in Russian), comparing the newly-released HadCRUT data to records from the Russian meteorological service, which supplied the parts of HadCRUT covering Russia. According to Russian newpaper Kommersant, as relayed via the RIA Novosti news wire, Illarionov says that the HadCRUT dataset doesn't include the records from many of Russia's meteorological stations. He adds that the missing records, if they had been included by the British climate scientists, would have significantly reduced the amount of warming shown for Russia by the HadCRUT database. As Russia accounts for 12.5 per cent of the world's land mass, according to Illarionov the use of complete Russian records would significantly reduce the figures on global warming in recent times. Climatologists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) had long been criticised for refusing to reveal the raw data on which their global-warming figures and graphs were based. Last month an anonymous hacker posted a large amount of data, including private emails sent to and from CRU personnel, triggering the so-called "climategate" brouhaha. The emails didn't appear to show that the CRU scientists had actually falsified any figures in an attempt to strengthen the case for human-created, CO2-driven global warming. However they did show that the climatologists were extremely keen to push that case and to suppress scientific dissent on the matter. The affair has so far led Phil Jones, head of the CRU, to "step aside" form running the unit pending an "independent review"; and the announcement by the UK Met Office - in charge of climate change research in the UK - that it will publish all its raw data as soon as it can. Some was released nine days ago, and it is this which Illarionov has been examining. The HadCRUT dataset is very important in the climate change debate. It was used by the UN in determining that exceptional global warming is taking place, and that this is caused by human activity - primarily thought to be greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2. The CRU has always defended the HadCRUT results on the grounds that the two other comparable global databases - both in America, one run by NASA and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - agree with it. However it's perhaps worth noting that the NASA database is under the control of Dr James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute in New York. Hansen is the world high priest of human-caused global warming, a man whose personal beliefs are well-known: he has travelled to the UK for the purpose of joining protests against new power plants, for instance. (Even Hansen, however, has lately admitted that greenhouse gas emissions may not be the dominant factor in climate change.) More studies of this type - though not necessarily clashing with the HadCRUT figures, of course - may appear in coming weeks, as analysts around the world trawl through the newly-released data. ® "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #423 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #424 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish. That is only one possibility. He asked a specific question, which warrants a specific answer. Why do you deflect?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #425 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish. That is only one possibility. He asked a specific question, which warrants a specific answer. Why do you deflect? What a stupid question. How am I expected to know why someone unknown to me filed a lawsuit. If Mike wants to know he should go ask the plaintiff and not ask me to do his homework.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next Page 17 of 22 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jcd11235 0 #412 December 15, 2009 Quote You whining about 'some right-wing blog' then mentioning factcheck is fucking hilarious. If you're claiming Factcheck.org is significantly biased, then you're only demonstrating that you don't really understand what media bias is.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #413 December 15, 2009 Quote Quote You whining about 'some right-wing blog' then mentioning factcheck is fucking hilarious. If you're claiming Factcheck.org is significantly biased, then you're only demonstrating that you don't really understand what media bias is. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #414 December 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAGW is a product of (valid) science I refer you back to the SECOND sentence of my reply. Unfortunately for your argument, those things have not been shown to happen, despite what you might read on some right-wing blog ranting about "Climategate." Don't believe me? here. Have you found a site where they list the doc and spread sheets in a simular fashion? I have them but they are a pain to go through"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #415 December 15, 2009 No, I haven't. You can find the 'harry read me' file on scribd, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 388 #416 December 17, 2009 Too easy... Given the choice of hyperbole or supstance you jump to the former. Try to deal with the supstance. Oh thats rite u cant. (now attack my spuling und puntuation) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #417 December 17, 2009 QuoteToo easy... Given the choice of hyperbole or supstance you jump to the former. Try to deal with the supstance. Oh thats rite u cant. (now attack my spuling und puntuation) Stop behaving like a 4th grader if you want a serious response.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 388 #418 December 17, 2009 fair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 388 #419 December 17, 2009 Oh one more thing, I keep it at a fourth grade level so you can keep up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #420 December 17, 2009 Quotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #421 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #422 December 17, 2009 And it contiunues CRU is looking like a real research group huh Quote 'CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data', says Russian http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/ Quote Newly released info probed as Climategate, um, snowballs By Lewis Page • Get more from this author Posted in Environment, 17th December 2009 11:29 GMT A prominent Russian climate sceptic and free-market economist says that the British HadCRUT global temperature database - much of which has now been released to the public following the "climategate" email scandal - has been manipulated to show greater warming in Russia than is actually the case. Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to then-Russian President Putin, is head of his own thinktank in Moscow, the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA). He is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian American thinktank. He has always been a climate sceptic, having vigorously opposed Russia's signing up to the Kyoto protocols. On Tuesday, Illarionov released the following report (pdf in Russian), comparing the newly-released HadCRUT data to records from the Russian meteorological service, which supplied the parts of HadCRUT covering Russia. According to Russian newpaper Kommersant, as relayed via the RIA Novosti news wire, Illarionov says that the HadCRUT dataset doesn't include the records from many of Russia's meteorological stations. He adds that the missing records, if they had been included by the British climate scientists, would have significantly reduced the amount of warming shown for Russia by the HadCRUT database. As Russia accounts for 12.5 per cent of the world's land mass, according to Illarionov the use of complete Russian records would significantly reduce the figures on global warming in recent times. Climatologists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) had long been criticised for refusing to reveal the raw data on which their global-warming figures and graphs were based. Last month an anonymous hacker posted a large amount of data, including private emails sent to and from CRU personnel, triggering the so-called "climategate" brouhaha. The emails didn't appear to show that the CRU scientists had actually falsified any figures in an attempt to strengthen the case for human-created, CO2-driven global warming. However they did show that the climatologists were extremely keen to push that case and to suppress scientific dissent on the matter. The affair has so far led Phil Jones, head of the CRU, to "step aside" form running the unit pending an "independent review"; and the announcement by the UK Met Office - in charge of climate change research in the UK - that it will publish all its raw data as soon as it can. Some was released nine days ago, and it is this which Illarionov has been examining. The HadCRUT dataset is very important in the climate change debate. It was used by the UN in determining that exceptional global warming is taking place, and that this is caused by human activity - primarily thought to be greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2. The CRU has always defended the HadCRUT results on the grounds that the two other comparable global databases - both in America, one run by NASA and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - agree with it. However it's perhaps worth noting that the NASA database is under the control of Dr James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute in New York. Hansen is the world high priest of human-caused global warming, a man whose personal beliefs are well-known: he has travelled to the UK for the purpose of joining protests against new power plants, for instance. (Even Hansen, however, has lately admitted that greenhouse gas emissions may not be the dominant factor in climate change.) More studies of this type - though not necessarily clashing with the HadCRUT figures, of course - may appear in coming weeks, as analysts around the world trawl through the newly-released data. ® "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #423 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #424 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish. That is only one possibility. He asked a specific question, which warrants a specific answer. Why do you deflect?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,644 #425 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish. That is only one possibility. He asked a specific question, which warrants a specific answer. Why do you deflect? What a stupid question. How am I expected to know why someone unknown to me filed a lawsuit. If Mike wants to know he should go ask the plaintiff and not ask me to do his homework.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next Page 17 of 22 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #415 December 15, 2009 No, I haven't. You can find the 'harry read me' file on scribd, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #416 December 17, 2009 Too easy... Given the choice of hyperbole or supstance you jump to the former. Try to deal with the supstance. Oh thats rite u cant. (now attack my spuling und puntuation) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #417 December 17, 2009 QuoteToo easy... Given the choice of hyperbole or supstance you jump to the former. Try to deal with the supstance. Oh thats rite u cant. (now attack my spuling und puntuation) Stop behaving like a 4th grader if you want a serious response.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #418 December 17, 2009 fair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #419 December 17, 2009 Oh one more thing, I keep it at a fourth grade level so you can keep up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #420 December 17, 2009 Quotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #421 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #422 December 17, 2009 And it contiunues CRU is looking like a real research group huh Quote 'CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data', says Russian http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/ Quote Newly released info probed as Climategate, um, snowballs By Lewis Page • Get more from this author Posted in Environment, 17th December 2009 11:29 GMT A prominent Russian climate sceptic and free-market economist says that the British HadCRUT global temperature database - much of which has now been released to the public following the "climategate" email scandal - has been manipulated to show greater warming in Russia than is actually the case. Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to then-Russian President Putin, is head of his own thinktank in Moscow, the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA). He is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian American thinktank. He has always been a climate sceptic, having vigorously opposed Russia's signing up to the Kyoto protocols. On Tuesday, Illarionov released the following report (pdf in Russian), comparing the newly-released HadCRUT data to records from the Russian meteorological service, which supplied the parts of HadCRUT covering Russia. According to Russian newpaper Kommersant, as relayed via the RIA Novosti news wire, Illarionov says that the HadCRUT dataset doesn't include the records from many of Russia's meteorological stations. He adds that the missing records, if they had been included by the British climate scientists, would have significantly reduced the amount of warming shown for Russia by the HadCRUT database. As Russia accounts for 12.5 per cent of the world's land mass, according to Illarionov the use of complete Russian records would significantly reduce the figures on global warming in recent times. Climatologists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) had long been criticised for refusing to reveal the raw data on which their global-warming figures and graphs were based. Last month an anonymous hacker posted a large amount of data, including private emails sent to and from CRU personnel, triggering the so-called "climategate" brouhaha. The emails didn't appear to show that the CRU scientists had actually falsified any figures in an attempt to strengthen the case for human-created, CO2-driven global warming. However they did show that the climatologists were extremely keen to push that case and to suppress scientific dissent on the matter. The affair has so far led Phil Jones, head of the CRU, to "step aside" form running the unit pending an "independent review"; and the announcement by the UK Met Office - in charge of climate change research in the UK - that it will publish all its raw data as soon as it can. Some was released nine days ago, and it is this which Illarionov has been examining. The HadCRUT dataset is very important in the climate change debate. It was used by the UN in determining that exceptional global warming is taking place, and that this is caused by human activity - primarily thought to be greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2. The CRU has always defended the HadCRUT results on the grounds that the two other comparable global databases - both in America, one run by NASA and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - agree with it. However it's perhaps worth noting that the NASA database is under the control of Dr James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute in New York. Hansen is the world high priest of human-caused global warming, a man whose personal beliefs are well-known: he has travelled to the UK for the purpose of joining protests against new power plants, for instance. (Even Hansen, however, has lately admitted that greenhouse gas emissions may not be the dominant factor in climate change.) More studies of this type - though not necessarily clashing with the HadCRUT figures, of course - may appear in coming weeks, as analysts around the world trawl through the newly-released data. ® "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #423 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #424 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish. That is only one possibility. He asked a specific question, which warrants a specific answer. Why do you deflect?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #425 December 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotefair enough, please address my point of how NASA's raw data should be public, not state secrets as you would suggest False premise - they are not state secrets nor are they treated as such. Then why is NASA/GISS being sued for non-compliance, after refusal to release data under FOIA? Anyone can file a suit for any reason they wish. That is only one possibility. He asked a specific question, which warrants a specific answer. Why do you deflect? What a stupid question. How am I expected to know why someone unknown to me filed a lawsuit. If Mike wants to know he should go ask the plaintiff and not ask me to do his homework.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
