New information on the CRU emails, now it appears it may not be a hack but a insider:
The anonymous tipster, whom many people initially assumed had “hacked” into the computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (repeatedly called the “Hadley CRU,” by mistake), might in fact be a CRU insider who released the files for his own reasons.
The user, known only as “FOIA” (which now appears to be a reference to the British equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act), left only one comment on The Air Vent to announce his release of his 61-MB ZIP archive. He has never been heard from since, nor has anyone stepped forward claiming to be that person since the story became widely known.
Persons knowledgeable in information security hold that this is not the behavior of a hacker. A hacker normally boasts of his act, even if he were hired or otherwise suborned to commit his act by someone else. These two reports provide illustrations of such behavior.
Other commenters have observed that the very form and organization of the archive, which expands to 168 MB of text files, word-processing documents, PDF files, raw data, and even program code, indicate that someone already having access to the system logged in through his usual channels, made the archive, and then logged out. The user’s choice of words indicate someone having a motive to disclose to the world certain activities and mindsets that the user found distasteful, at least.
This Examiner has been able to reconstruct a timeline of the story
Read the original article to see the timeline, it is quite damning evidence that this was no hacker, but an insider and it all boils down to:
Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre’s efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit that they would resort to violate the law….all in the name of “science”
See author page
Meaning Phil Jones violating the law, Curt? “FOIA” would have the status of a whistle blower in this case. And if he/she violated a confidentiality agreement for corporate status, this would be a civil contratual penalty, IMHO.
But I suspect you and I mean the same thing, yes?
Perhaps the most insight as to who is FOIA may lie in who is the most disgruntled about this fudging of numbers by scientists. Mike Hulme certainly was, but he is also no AGW denier. Thus his damning of this practice comes from one of “their own”.
Maybe Patvann, who has the entire file, can see some potential whistle blowers in the data as he’s pounding thru the content. All speculation, of course. But certainly a willing participant in the figures lie game is not likely to be the whistle blower. So one would expect they can be eliminated.
BTW, two *very* interesting links for you all here.
First, Roger Pielke Jr’s blog with some very captivating comments from the readers. Pielke Jr. is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His father, Pielke Sr, and founder of the Pielke Research Group, is also in the climate biz and and has his own blog. Pielke Sr, like Mike Hulme, is also not a denier, but rails against the manipulation of science facts. As a matter of fact, Pielke’s (the Sr) credits getting his website to Climate Audit, Steve McIntye’s blog site.
Second, in the comments of Pielke’s thread about the CRU data exposure is a link to a Sept 2009 National Review article about how the database for the Jones and Wigley record – the primary standard for hte holier than though political piece known as the IPCC report – had simply (and conveniently) disappeared…. “discarded or purged” from an old computer, perhaps. Pielke Jr also blogged on the same mysterious disappearance of the original database a few weeks earlier.
The article walks thru the history of both Steve McIntyre and an Aussie scientist, Warwick Hughes, who had the audacity to question Phil Jones on what he bases his revered findings.
Pielke Jr was also another who requested the original database from Phil Jones, who responded:
Patrick J. Michaels (author of the linked National Review article above) called foul on that sidestep of truth, saying:
Today, on Roger Pielke Sr’s blog, he has this post about he is being impugned and his climate views misrepresented by Tom Peterson of the NCDC in correspondence to Phil Jones about a comment Pielke had made in a report in 2005:
As Pielke is quick to say, he is not a climate skeptic nor denier. This, however, is not stopping the unethical politico-scientists from eating their own when the latter group points out “inconvenient truths” in their base data collection.
heh
… still waiting for larry to explain why they felt the need to remove the Medeival Warm Period temeratures from their data, why they needed to remove the 30s-40s warming cycle from their data, why they felt the need to discredit publications that printed research that didn’t jibe with theirs, why, why, why, why, WHY?
As fascinating as this story is (“scientists” LYING and corrupting data? Who knew?) I wonder how much of this is getting out to the general public?
I know support for big government intervention to address climate change is dropping fast in the polls and if something like this story were to go mainstream those numbers would sink faster.
But I’ll willing to bet that if the “news” media beyond Fox News reports this at all it’s a one day story at best and sandwiched in between video of cute polar bear cubs playing with sad music in the background.
The best thing about this, is that it might give the scientists who have felt “shy” about Human-caused global warming, (or “change” depending on the invocation) the strength to come forward.
Otto:
Because it was hotter during the “MWP” than it is now and it was also warm during the 30’s and they don’t want the “generally uninformed public” to know what went on the the 1990’s wasn’t the earths hottest time period.
In the UK suspicion is falling on the USA as a source of this hack.
Who benefits from it? There is no organised sceptic movement in the UK, policy for Copenhagen is fixed and the chances of being prosecuted for the hack are significant. In the US there is an organised sceptic movement, your policy for Copenhagen is not fixed and there is little chance of being prosecuted for the hack.
In addition Senator Inhofe claimed that this was the year of the sceptic on Wednesday: after the hack but before it was made public.
And the real smoking gun: the hacker is called FOIA. In the UK we talk of the FIA or a FOI request.
Ah yes, Bucko, that I know.
I just wondered if larry had the intelligence to know that, also.
I’ve always wondered why the sceptics are so hung up on the MWP. You see there is no eveidence for a cause of higher temperatures then, so if it did exist as global higher temperatures then something trivial caused it. This means that the climate is very sensitive, which is not what you want to imply if you’re trying to say that CO2 is not a problem.
Perhaps you in the British streets do, turbo… however your media references refer to it as FOIA or FoIA. Perhaps the British insider (which I think “inside” is the most likely source) reads more than you do, and picks up the complete phrase of your 2003 Act.
If that’s the best you can do for concocting a conspiracy, diverting attention from the deliberate manipulation of facts in order to advance an agenda, you’re on as thin of ice as the data itself.
But take heart… the ice is thickening, despite the loudest chicken little cries.
When I was just a young ‘un, I thought I wanted to be a scientist. A family friend talked me out of it. He told me that no matter where I went to work, I would have to sell my soul. If I worked for a big company, my research would need to reflect the views of that company. Work for myself, I would need to find grants and the work would need to reflect the views of those providing the grants. But the scientific community has also worked through this because of transparency and peer review. Climate research has neither. The climate change advocates have constantly refused to have their work peer reviewed and have gone so far as to destroy data rather than have it exposed to review. Any scientist worth their salt would toss these idiots under the bus and then back over them. What they are doing isn’t science, it’s called an agenda.
And by the way, engineers are smarter and we’re better looking. 😉
@Turboblocke said: “This means that the climate is very sensitive, which is not what you want to imply if you’re trying to say that CO2 is not a problem.”
I guess logic isn’t your strong suit now is it?
The climate may indeed be sensitive to certain factors but that does not mean the climate is sensitive to CO2 levels. In fact, it is fairly well substantiated that CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature changes and not lead them.
What is the real driving factor to climate change?
Hint: Do you need me to shed some LIGHT on that?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1510878h4857754/
And this brief video primer is an excellent debunker of the CO2 myth:
Finally, I doubt there are many “scientists” (that word has become devalued) who would argue that if we followed every prescription of Al Gore and friends that the climate would change one bit as a result. There is just no sound evidence to suggest that altering man’s behavior will have the slightest impact on the climate.
To add to Mike’sA comment about driving factors of climate changes and temperatures, I’ve throw some related data for Turbo on another thread. We have parallel info going here. So it’s good if some of the comments were hyperlinked to related data on the other.
It’s odd to me that people seem completely blinded to the fact that the “climate change” (formerly known as global warming, anthropogenic warming, greenhouse, etc)., are JUST as defensive, and evasive, and political, etc., as anybody else. Yes, it make be a completely shock, but the “greenies” have lobbyist. Lobbyist who represent “businesses”…as in “for a profit” who seek to convince large spenders (like our gov) to replace portions of our current energy base with “their” products.
And where these things “have” happened on a large (or larger) scale, like Germany, it has failed miserably in every area of what it promised to do easily …if only given the chance.
Further, I find some of the defensive arguments about whats in some of these emails ridiculous. The fact that some PITA opponent of their work (ie., the “skeptics” and heretics) is an ass who had previously misrepresented how much data he was given, doesn’t excuse them for what THEY do or say otherwise. It’s clear to me from these emails that they DID in fact deny FOIA requests for data..and deleted their emails. That appears to be a “fact” that is not disputed. Further, despite whatever earlier beefs they had, it appears that they did in fact deny to send certain requested data or information because the scientist who requested it would just use it to try and disprove their results. duh! So much for science.
And yet…as a defense…they go “back” to suggest that none of this somehow matters or is important because that scientist was an obvious skeptic/opponent of their work in the past. Nor does the fact that these emails may have been “stolen”, change what’s in them and what it means.
It’s also interesting that every time something like this happens, or some little hole/leak appears in their balloon, the rush to fix it is proactive and extremely organized and widespread. Within an hour or two…everyone is on the same page, with the same answers and same arguments to divert attention from what just happened. It didn’t take long for them to pull that one paragraph out of 60megs of emails to hold up and suggest everything else was simply being taken out of context. Every blog, every article…same quote. It was if they were seeing…see…this could be completely innocent…so…”skeptics” are jumping to conclusions to try and make something out of nothing…move along, move along…etc. Sheep.
Sorry Mate, but if you Google FIA, limiting it to the UK you get over 5,400,000 hits. FOIA gives 85,000.
The only reason you’re seeing FOIA more often in the media now is because the hacker raised it’s profile.
Thanks for the link to the other thread: I see someone claims that global warming has been replaced by “climate change” . Check out when the IPCC was created and what the CC means. (That would be 1988 and Climate Change)
Here’s a basic intelligence test for you guys:(If you pass this there may be hope for you and I’ll be prepared to educate you further) how come GISSTEMP shows a higher anomaly that the HADCRUT index which in turn is higher than UAH/RSS?
Turboblocke — go away you arrogant jerk…
Very amusing CBD: your colleagues arrogantly assume that I need to be educated and that’s fine by you, but when I act the same you call me an arrogant jerk.
A couple of quotes from above for you to peruse:
“I guess logic isn’t your strong suit now is it?”
“Hint: Do you need me to shed some LIGHT on that?”
“I’ve throw some related data for Turbo on another thread. ”
Ot how about telling a Brit how we speak in the UK… “Perhaps you in the British streets do, turbo… however your media references refer to it as FOIA or FoIA.”
It has not gone unnoticed in the UK that our trans-Atlantic cousins have been trying to rubbish Hadley Centre and CRU for the last few years. We wonder why it is CRU gets inundated with multiple vexatious FOI requests, while the US Institutions don’t. Obviously it would be un-American and unpatriotic to trash NASA, but attacking your allies is OK.
@ Turboblocke
I’m afraid you’re wrong there little cousin. James Hansen, NASA’s climate chief, we bash him quite reqularly. And consider it very patriotic to do so.
Just to underline that the UK is not a part of the USA and has different rules, taken from RC.
“Further to Martin Vermeer’s point above that it’s legal to delete materials not subject to a FOI request, most of the people commenting on the illegality of deleting emails are probably not familiar with the relevant British law and practice. Nor am I. But the official guidance states that “staff must identify email messages that are records of their business activities and those that are not” and are in fact required to eventually delete those that do not belong in the corporate official record.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-procedural-information.htm “
@Turboblocke: you totally ignored my “hint” above. I can understand why.
Easier to play these little “you started it” games than deal with the substance here.
The fact remains that manmade CO2 is NOT the problem here and if scientists were freed of any career and financial considerations to engage in an HONEST debate we might just find that the driver of climate change IS the Sun.
Of course you’d have to be a fool to think the Sun isn’t responsible for climate change!
@ Turbolocke
Does the FOI really matter? Science is supposed to be open for review, especially peer review. Hiding you data and how you arrived at that data does nothing to further the scientific process.
Turbo, you use a Google search result as evidence of whether FOIA, FIA or FOI is more prominent? Heaven help us if this is the extend of your evidentiary skills. Plus it also indicates you are clueless as to how the Google search engine works.
“climate change” v “global warming”. Yes, the “CC” in IPCC stands for climate change. The first IPCC report was in 1990. However the media and public phrase became known as global warming, as that’s the man-made “change” they were addressing. However data was on the horizon and in 1992, the issue was discussed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit where they adopted “climate change” as the preferred description for media consumption. However the media then, and to this day, still interchange the phrases.
Climate Change in IPCC speak is basically change they define as caused by man, and not nature. In itself, it’s a lofty and scientifically iffy quest. So what they don’t know, they make up, exaggerate, cherry pick, and mutilate.
I assure you, Turbo, if you had definitive proof of global warming… something that no one is able to do to date… I’m quite sure you’d have fame and notoriety that you do not enjoy now. While you attempt to play cute “intelligence test” games, it does not alter the reality that even scientists who are *not* deniers or skeptics are railing against the political deception that the “climate specialists”… so to speak… are engaging in. They are also saying that the research is based on too narrow of sciences to yield more definitive results.
All in all, the “consensus” isn’t such a consensus afterall when there is infighting amongst the Gore’believers themselves.
Noting to you there was additional info on another thread that I didn’t wish to duplicate here was “arrogant”?
If this is your threshhold for twisted knickers, you are the delicate poofster indeed.
I’m still dumbfounded how Turbo brags that his countrymen are so much easily led by such charlatans than us Yanks are. As though this is a good thing.
Wow. Poodles have nothing on him, except some remaining will to bark.
Honest “mate” we don’t care where the BS comes from, as it all stinks the same. Please continue to blindly defend the centre, as I still have a lot of reading and typing to do before I fully expose all of this, and the regulars here like to be entertained while waiting.
Thank you.
Yes PV, like the guy leaving the sushi restaurant, I wait with baited breath.
OK Turbo here’s three questions for you that are NEVER answered by the Global Warming cabal –
1.Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
2.Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
3.Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
These questions are based, of course, on the data from CRU BEFORE we were certain the Gorebots were cooking the books.
They won’t answer those questions because CO2’s “greenhouse effects” are VERY non-linear, resembling more a logarithmic curve where large absolute increases in concentration produce ever diminishing effects. Since we are well off on the right side of that log curve now, CO2 effect is getting pretty close to about as bad as it can get. Even a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling from today’s levels would only produce very incremental changes anymore.
@PA
Well said sir. You are 100% correct. Hell, even if doubled the concentration would still only be 0.08% of the atmosphere. (*gasp weez choke, falls over*)
@Skooks
Let’s see if we can whet some of that appetite of yours with a little taste from the chef.
I call it: Cooked Data Made Pretty, in Light of a Counterview. (flambé optional)
My oh my, we have been busy bees haven’t we.
Firstly, it is the height of arrogance to tell a Brit how we use our language in the UK.
MH said “Turbo, you use a Google search result as evidence of whether FOIA, FIA or FOI is more prominent? Heaven help us if this is the extend of your evidentiary skills. Plus it also indicates you are clueless as to how the Google search engine works.”
Very amusing: you claimed that you knew how we say it from the media reports. Didn’t it occur to you that the current media reports might be influenced by the hacker’s name FOIA?
I had never heard any Brit use the term FOIA before the hack. If you look at the hacked e-mails they mostly refer to FOI.
It is also arrogant to assume that I would need your data.
Now if you guys have had enough of the ritual pissing contest, we can have a civilised discussion…
I note that you guys are prepared to attack Hansen. He is not NASA, so you’re still being more respectful of your own institutions than mine. I also note that he hasn’t been flooded by F(O)IA requests.
Now I mentioned an intelligence test above that no one responded to. Why not? Is it because you can’t or you won’t?
Just to show good faith on my part I’ll deal with Mr. Flashman’s questions.
Mr. Flashman asked:
1.Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
-Assuming you’re right about the CO2 increase and the global cooling (whch is a cherry pick, which I won’t go into now): the Earth’s climate is complex with many influences, there are natural causes of climate change and man made ones. In this question you are postulating that the only influence on temperature is CO2. Do you really believe that? If you do believe it, you are wrong. If you don’t believe it, why ask this question?
There are still things we don’t know about the climate and NASA has a good overview of them here: http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/
2.Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
– the rate and magnitude of GLOBAL warming is unprecedented. If you have a proof that it is not unprecedented please link to it.
3.Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
-No, the individual models show periods of cooling, warming and static temperature. They are climate models that are intended to show what the climate will look like in the future, so the short term forecast is not their aim. What you tend to see in, for example IPCC FAR, are the agregate projections. There’s a paper on this very subject here;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml
Here’s a loose analogy e.g. I predict that England will win the World Cup in one year. Now suppose a whole bunch of us predict that England win. I might think that England beats Germany but loses against Monaco in the first round. Fred might think that we draw in both those matches but go on to win the Final. Even if we’re both wrong with the intermediate steps, we might both get the right final answer. And that is because we are aware of the natural superiority of our team, 😉 but can’t take into account things like bad refereeing, French manual skills, playing conditions etc.
So you could (if legal where you are) bet on England winning the final and complain to me if they don’t, but you can’t blame me if you bet and lose on other results.
Breaking news from the UK:
‘Hello, this is Sir Bufton Tufton MP, how can I help you’
‘Hi – I am calling to alert you to the fact that the the scientific basis for global warming is flawed and to demand the resignation of Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU at UEA for manipulation of scientific data …’
‘Very odd, our Chief Scientific Advisor assures me the scientific case is solid, his predecessor described climate change as a bigger threat than terrorism. And that is an exceedingly serious allegation, what is your basis? ‘
‘He has admitted as much in an email, look …. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”
‘I see the Professor has explained the meaning of this quote on the UEA website … http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update … It seems perfectly innocuous to me …’
‘Well, he has deleted data rather than release it under the Freedom of Information Act’
‘Another very serious matter. What data was destroyed?’
‘Well, actually we don’t know. But he certainly wrote mails that we can make sound very much like he was going to delete some emails ….’
‘I see. Do you have the full record of the correspondence, is it possible there are others that provide more context and background…?
‘I don’t know’
‘Excuse me?’
‘Well we only have a selection of the mails ….’
‘I see. These mails, I am sure you are aware that under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 an email is classed as a literary work and anyone reproducing it without permission of the copyright owner, that is, the author is committing an offence? I assume you have received such permission from Professor Jones … ‘
‘Well, not exactly. We acquired the mails from an anonymous individual who removed them from the UEA server without authority …’
‘I see, look, would you mind awfully supplying your name and address, the police would like to have a word with you regarding an ongoing investigation. Just routine you understand …’
Pavan said “Well said sir. You are 100% correct. Hell, even if doubled the concentration would still only be 0.08% of the atmosphere. (*gasp weez choke, falls over*)”
Now in the UK and Europe we have been aware of AGW for a long time, it’s been on the syllabus at secondary schools since the earlier 1990’s so I can confidently say that a schoolkid over the age of 15 in the UK would take you to task for what you are trying to imply with that remark.
You see 99 % of the atmosphere has no significant Greenhouse effect: so although CO2 is about 380 parts per million of the atmosphere, when you take away the 990,000 ppm that are not Greenhouse gase, CO becomes 380 parts of 10,000. That’s 3.8%.
To be frank: if you’ve not even reached that level of understanding, then you haven’t delved very deeply into the subject.
3.8% isn’t much in absolute terms, but it does affect the balance. Think of two Sumo wrestlers (Er I think you call them Wal-Mart customers in the States 😉 ) on a see-saw (teeter-totter?) in balance. Give one of them a feather to hold and the balance is disrupted.
BTW it is true that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic as PA says above: that’s why climate sensitivity is commonly referred to as an equilibrium change of T°C/ doubling of CO2.
@ Turboblocke
Hansen is the face of NASA’s climate research. So I think that makes him NASA. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
FOIA suits:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/libertarian-group-to-sue-administration-for-failing-to-disclose-global-warming-docs-.html
Michael Mann has refused FOIA requests saying that even though the research was 100% funded by taxpayer money, he considers it his intellectual property. That is 100% crap. If you work with government funds, everything you do is intellectual property of the people that paid for it.
That really isn’t the point though. If global warming or climate change or whatever name it gets this week is so important, why is the information that proves its existence so guarded. The answer is relatively simple. The only scientists that hide their data, are those that have something to hide. Most scientists want to share their discoveries and open them up for peer review. They believe in their work and the work product. These guys only believe in their agenda.
@Turbo
You see 99 % of the atmosphere has no significant Greenhouse effect: so although CO2 is about 380 parts per million of the atmosphere, when you take away the 990,000 ppm that are not Greenhouse gase, CO becomes 380 parts of 10,000. That’s 3.8%.
They’ve done a good job with you folks over there…But over here we like our percentages based on the whole, and our science based on data, thank you very much.
Try these two words in relation to Greenhouse effect: Water vapour.
Think real hard about it, and then come back to us. Please continue to enjoy your 1.67491 decades of brainwashing, as you seem so comfortable.
Until now, that is.
Far be it for me to determine what “gase” is, other than an obscure colloquialism, but I do hope my usage of the Queen’s English is up to your standards. One can never be haughty enough, I always say.
The boffo thing about being a neolithic barbarian dwelling here in the States, is that I care not one wit about your silly little laws. Whilst I do much appreciate the Magna Carta, that remains the extent of my gratitudinal outreach. After all good chap, self defense is a term that has lost quite a bit of it’s meaning in your parts, hasn’t it?
Please continue with your assumptions about us Americans.
Turbo: Take you sophistry to an actual climate site, where you will rightly get your clock cleaned.
Hint: this is not a climate debate site, it is examining the obvious, documented perfidy of science and scientists here in the 21st century. It’s a larger point, in case you didn’t notice.
@Turboblocke said: “Now in the UK and Europe we have been aware of AGW for a long time, it’s been on the syllabus at secondary schools since the earlier 1990’s “
Gee… so school kids are now the arbiters of what is or is not science? Considering how so many of them are fed nothing but AGW propaganda, they are in NO position to make objective judgements.
Thinking back to my own experience in the early 1990’s I wasn’t in secondary school, but I did work for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington where I began an early education on this topic. One of the first things I learned is that the science had become hopelessly corrupted by politics.
You need to stop parroting the warmer-speak you’ve been programmed with and start to look at this problem more objectively.
If that’s possible.
“Hint: this is not a climate debate site, it is examining the obvious, documented perfidy of science and scientists here in the 21st century. It’s a larger point, in case you didn’t notice.”
I was merely replying to Mr. Flashman’s questions: if you have a problem with him asking them, then I suggest you take it up with him.
Aqua: sorry mate but one FOIA request is nothing compared to the flood that CRU had at the instigation of McIntyre. And as I made clear: in the US the attacks are on the man, not the Institution. What problem do you have with Hansen anyway: is it something to do with the question I repeat below?
Ah Patvann you got me right in the keyboard: gase is a typo, it should have read gases.
And a gratuitous attack on my countrymens’ failure to kill each other too: “After all good chap, self defense is a term that has lost quite a bit of it’s meaning in your parts, hasn’t it?”
Still persisting with the pissing ritual are you? OK try this for size: here’s a term that has no meaning in the UK “medical bankruptcy” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html
Water vapour: a greenhouse gas too: now think on this: what happens if there is more CO2
in the regions where there is no water vapour. You’re being very inscrutable but I think all it hides is that you are still at “the atmosphere is a single layer” level. Man, that’s so 1940’s. If you really want a discussion you should state your case otherwise you sound like a grumpy wife: “What’s up dear? “Not telling” “Why not?” “If you loved me you would know.” etc
Now guys, you’re a spirited bunch, I’ll give you that but you’re still ducking the question: how come GISSTEMP shows a higher anomaly that the HADCRUT index which in turn is higher than UAH/RSS?
@ Turboblocke
Nope.
I have no idea what any of that means. I imagine I could read about it for a while and be able to answer, but that isn’t the issue I have with CRU, Mann or Hansen. My issue is what I stated before, which you are apparently ducking. Why hide the raw data if you have nothing to hide. Science is a process of work product and review. These people and institutions do not want a review. They want their agenda followed, period. Seriously, if I were a scientist and I discovered an asteroid that all my calculations showed it was headed right for earth, I would want everyone in my field to check my data. But, if I were working at CRU or NASA’s Goddard Institute, I would hide that data and tell everyone that the only way to avoid the impact of the asteroid was to stop driving cars and shut down all the coal plants. Right? Right!
@ Turbo said:
Water vapour: a greenhouse gas too: now think on this: what happens if there is more CO2
in the regions where there is no water vapour.
I’ll tell ya what…”mate”…You tell me where this mythical non-blue-sky place is, the percentage of water-vapour on the over-all greenhouse effect, and at what altitude (and temps) does CO2 have it’s effects. Include the IR (defined in microns) differing from H2O, and I’ll answer your silly straw-man question having nothing to do with this topic.
But please continue to underestimate me, my education, and my experience whilst you do so, as I am busy perusing my absconded documents showing that even the head of your most revered climate “research” group isn’t all that keen on doing any actual science pertaining to CO2.
P.S. I am aware of higher-altitude C13 studies
Aqua: my apologies for not answering your question. I have no idea what they were thinking. And from the e-mails I’m none the wiser.
However, what data is it that they actually hid? What these e-mails could show, and I use the word “could” advisably, is that they were fed up with being hasseled by McI and were being as bureaucratic and annoying as possible. If you have no evidence that data was destoyed or hidden, then you don’t have a crime. Or is the law different in the USA?
Duh Patvann: you’re the one who assumed I needed educating “To add to Mike’sA comment about driving factors of climate changes and temperatures, I’ve throw some related data for Turbo on another thread.”
I make no assumptions about your education or experience.
And you ask a strange question:”I’ll tell ya what…”mate”…You tell me where this mythical non-blue-sky place is, the percentage of water-vapour on the over-all greenhouse effect, and at what altitude (and temps) does CO2 have it’s effects. Include the IR (defined in microns) differing from H2O, and I’ll answer your silly straw-man question having nothing to do with this topic.”
Shirley you know that CO2 absorption is dependant on pressure, so your question requires an algorithm that takes into account change in pressure i.e. you can’t treat the atmosphere as a single uniform layer. As for the area where there is no water vapour: look up. It is indeed the non-blue sky place, the outer reaches of the atmosphere.
Here’s a taster of a paper that deals with the change in IR absorption : http://www.licor.com/env/PDF/co2_abs.pdf If you want to calculate it for yourself can access the MODTRAN program here: http://www.modtran.org/
Now please answer my question.
My my, not only a low threshhold for wedgies, but one can add pompous know-it-all to Turbo’s character. LOL Ya’ll patience with this one is admirable. Maybe the pompous know-it-all will figure out that the missing database being discussed is the original raw data as Roger Pielke Sr was discussing, the links to which I provided to the intellectually curious in my comment above.
Only the intellectually dishonest (ahem, Turbo, that would be your pompous, twisted knicker self) can continue to argue with CRU’s own admission that they do not have the raw data to provide, suggesting is was mysteriously lost or discarded on some old computer.
Right….
@Turboblocke said: “Now guys, you’re a spirited bunch, I’ll give you that but you’re still ducking the question: how come GISSTEMP shows a higher anomaly that the HADCRUT index which in turn is higher than UAH/RSS? “
That reminds me of a professor I had at Columbia University (Obama’s alma mater) who said “If you can’t put it in “cab driver” language you probably don’t know what you are talking about.”
Sorry Turbutt, but you won’t convince anyone here with an Alphabet soup of acronyms. I realize you have been pre-programmed to parrot this kind of B.S. but you’re not making an effective case.
What’s left of objective science on this issue is mirroring public opinion and running away so fast from the scaremongering fantasies you WARMERS spew that you have lost the debate.
Senator Imhof said it best:
“We won, you lost, get a life!”
@Turdo
First of all, stop calling me Shirley.
Short answer:
Because they measure different things differently.
Medium answer:
The 2 of these “devices” for temperature monitoring have different time-constraints and baselines. There also have different averaging correctors built into the software, thus smoothing things differently like heat-island effects and wind currents, especially over the oceans.
The third device is satellite data measuring inferred lower-troposphere temperature by directly measuring mid-troposphere and the lower stratosphere temps.
Long answer:
GISSTEMP: is a combination of directly read ocean and land thermometers baselined between 1951-1980. The distance gaps between them are non linear, and show pronounced extremes, including heat-island effects, and localized weather, thus it’s average anomaly will always be highest.
HadCRUT3: is measuring differences in temperatures over the ocean and land in a blended and smoothed 5-degree grid overlay matrix starting from 1850 to present. (The longest direct-measurement baseline we have.) The software (unreleased to anyone) has “correctors” built in to do the smoothing for heat-island effect, bad station-placement, and localized weather. To their credit, they’ve erred on the side of conservative, meaning it will show fewer extremes than GISSTEMP.
UAH/RSS: These are satellites measuring not the surface of the planet, but very high up in the atmosphere. Using software (freely available from the University of Alabama and NASA) it calculates the lower atmospheric temps, by directly measuring mid-to-high altitude temps, where it is presumed to show variances from month-to-month without having localized effects “polluting” the data-stream, (and because it’s “grid” of signal-accumulation is quite large and uniform across the planet, other than at the poles). Because of this, it’s measured anomalies are the smallest.
I have answered your straw-man question, and I have overlooked the fact that you have NOT answered what the percentage of the Greenhouse-effect is done by water vapour. I will give you ½ credit for copy-pasting a site, rather than detailing why CO2’s IR absorption not covered by water vapour is a negligible effect, even at high-altitudes, but what the heck.
Now maybe you can tell me what the hell any of this has to do with the topic at-hand.
I hereby pass on your spurious offer to “educate me further”, as I’m bored with you, and I’m busy.
Apologies Patvann: I mixed you up with MH.
Sorry MH, your comprehension skills seem to be lacking: Aqua was asking about “hidden” data, not lost data.
If you want to talk about how unlikely it is to have lost data: have you still got any working 5 inch floppy drives? Or maybe a punch card reader. I’m sure I’ve got a couple of data cassettes from the late 1970’s hanging around somewhere: Commodore Pet 64. There’s no way they are ever going to be read.
Michaels comment about the 9 inch drives that you quote above is contentious. He wasn’t there, so it is mere speculation, yet you believe it condemns Jones . Here’s another phrase you don’t hear much in the UK: lynch mob.
You seem to postulate evil intent: carelessness or just not needing the data anymore are more likely explanations. Why would they keep the raw data after homogenisation? Presumeably at the time they knew the sources and thought that they could get the data back from the sources if necessary. Some 20-30 years later that is not so easy.
And what would be the point of hiding this data anyway: CRU are responsible for about 2% of the data that makes up the global average temperature. What do you imagine it would reveal?
All this distraction from you is avoiding two issues: the question that I posed above and the increasing suspicion that this was a US inspired hack. Take a look on Google at the publications that say it’s an inside job. The US sites say it first and claim the timeline proves it, which is total BS. Such an obvious ploy.
@Turboblocke: Has anyone else noticed how Turdo ignores the insight and experience of a former EPA official?
I guess it’s easier to keep spouting acronym laden WARMER parrot speak than engage in an honest discussion.
Isn’t that the point of this post?
Thanks Patvann. Glad you got the Shirley reference 😉
The reason I asked that question is that there are 4 main indices used to show global temperature: Gisstemp, Hadcrut, RSS and UAH.
They are commonly used to show the temp anomaly relative to the baseline years. For GISs it’s 1951-1980, Hadcrut is 1961-1990 and the last two it’s 1979 -1998. As you should be aware the 1950’s were cooler than the 60’s which were cooler than the 70’s etc. That means that GISSTEMP will always show a greater anomaly than Hadcrut which will be greater than UAH/RSS because their baseline years were cooler
If you take the different basline years into account, there is no significant difference in tha anomalies:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
and http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes for an alternative way of describing it.
Unfortunately, there is a popular website that pretends that Hansen and NASA fiddle the data to give a higher anomaly. They’ve even blamed it on the siting of the weather stations and UHI. They are so vocal that NOAA took a look at the weather stations. They compared the data from the ones that were declared OK by this popular website with all the stations in the network. Guess what they found: no significant difference. But what happened next: did the owner of the website apologise and admit he was wrong? No he carried on with duping volunteers into sending in pictures of weather stations.
So when someone thinks I need educating by pointing me to WUWT (see 13 above), I ask them the Gisstemp/hadcrut/UAH/RSS question, because their answer tells me all I need to know. And if that person tries to tell you that I’m not worth listening to and avoids the question, maybe it tells you something about them too.
Oy! OCH! Uff-DA! Reductio ad absurdum. Same old jabberwocky defending the indefensible.
“That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Turbolocke a one person circular argument, a Master Baiter.
I haven’t the time, patience or inclination to continue this.
Some people are like Slinkies…They’re really good for nothing but, they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
I’m smilin’ as I’m leaving.
I’m guilty of feeding the troll.
Mea culpa.
@ Turbo
And yet you STILL avoid my easy-to answer question about water-vapour….
Crapping on those who might question methodology is the same sort of thing that leads to why people like me don’t lend much credence to Hadley and Co. Good science isn’t afraid to hear-out septics. Those guys control who gets published, keep out those who question, then crap on them for not being published…
And you sit there doing the same thing. M&M have brought many good questions to the fore, and internally Hadley finds itself smashing their own co-authors for not spinning the “corporate” response in a manner that suits them. It’s pathetic, and childish…and YES they hide and conflate data, even in cases where they don’t really need to!
Any station in a proscribed zone, is better than a “corrected” bad one. Period. It’s why China moved 50 of them per Hadley’s instruct, (after threatening lawsuits) so knock it off if you want to be taken seriously. What you conveniently avoid, is that many of those stations-in-question are quietly being moved, as many are around the world per discovery by the same site you ridicule.
Is not accuracy paramount to science? Does consistency matter?
If Hadley and M&M worked together would it not be beneficial for all? Not for some, as the evidence shows that Hadley and company reveled in the death of their own internal skeptic, and were overjoyed with the leaving of another, both accomplished climatologists with a record of accuracy.
Personally, I sought-out those who would disagree with my assumptions and hypothesi, as it made me better-informed and in the end, produced better results for my customers.
@Mike
Do not worry my friend, as your vindication is being crafted at this very moment. Your experience with the dregs and dross of government is reflected in almost everything in this mess. It’s so political and territorial, it’s revolting.
How the hell did you manage to live through that period without committing felonious assault?
Now be a good Mod and get my latest response to Turdo out of purgatory. 🙂
*My* comprehension is lacking? That’s rich…. LOL First of all, Aqua was not “asking” anything. He was stating that deliberately hiding data and making it unavailable was unethical.
Part of the data “hidden” is the raw database. Interesting that when those such as McIntyre or Pielke’s request the data, it’s “lost”, but when Aussie scientist, Warwick Hughes, requested the data, Phil Jones responded “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” I, of course, have provided links to the news sources in my comments, but you… of course… are in possession of all knowledge and need no education. Bwahahahahaha
All of which plays into Aqua’s generic comments that hiding data (or proclaiming it’s “lost” or “merged” into a new database) is basically immoral for science and indicative of deviant political behavior.
I spent a couple of decades in the film and sound business, and have been beta testing and working full time on computers since the early 80s, Turbo. [Added: also have been working with digital recording and storage media in that entire time, starting with Stockham’s Soundstream system from the late 70’s] No one lets an irreplaceable database simply die because storage media change with evolving technology. They painstakingly transfer it to a new medium, oh Mr. Brilliant. I’d say if they do so with with classic films on deteriorating celluloid, I’m quite certain that such earth destroying, apocalyptic data is also preserved.
So again I say, “Lost”? Or is that database “hidden”? You seem to be certain that they carelessly purged, lost integral database overnight and accuse me of conspiracy theories. The reason they *should* keep the database (and probably did) is because a “homogenized” version can be merged inaccurately. And, judging by all the email conversations we’re getting excerpts of now, probably was. So ditch the raw database, and no one can prove you’ve forever altered the data in a rigged base of information.
And we’re supposed to believe this because scientists couldn’t foresee the demise of 5″ floppies? By gawd, if they couldn’t see that in advance, they shouldn’t be in charge of deciding if man is destroying the planet.
All your postulating stems from your speculation that this is a US hack merely because you and your blokes/mates don’t personally call it FOIA. Damn thin, dude. Personally, I don’t care who was the *whistle blower*, or their nationality. The person dodging and diverting from the original subject at hand about the deliberate manipulation of data to advance an end theory is simply you.
You are just not worth playing games with, Turbo. You not only need instruction and education in humility, you also need some simple lessons in civility and manners. Nor are you worth an additional nanosecond of my time or consideration as a human being or commenter. I wash my hands of you… and I am unanimous in this.
@Turdo
You come here and diss on our Mata’s skills, and you’ve done busted wide open a big bag of serious hurt, boy.
@MataHarley: “I am unanimous in this. “
Oh, oh. She’s channeling Mrs. Slocum again. Does that make Turdo Mr. Humphries?
tsk tsk, Mike… such a slam for such a great character as Mr. Humphries. LOL In fact, every cast member is a serious cut above our drive by AGW British leming.
On other fronts, Curt posted a London Times article by Lord Nigel Lawson of Blaby – former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 80s. They launched a new website call The Global Warming Policy Foundation, described as an all-party and non-party think tank educational charity.
So much for the unmatched-in-brillance-Turbo, still labouring under the impression there is “… no organised sceptic movement in the UK…” Apparently Lord Dawson and his TGWPF cohorts, Dr Benny Peiser, other trustees, and those on their academic advisory council harbor enough skepticism and are organised enough to be founding a website dedicated to wading thru the BS.
Lord Lawson is calling for a “a rigorous and independent” public inquiry into the CRU data scandal.
no shit, sherlock….
Meanwhile, back in the real world… Patvann, your question about water vapour IR absorbtion is clearly intended to show the conclusion that water vapour covers part of the CO2 IR spectra. This is true but only for a small part of the atmosphere. Sorry that I don’t indulge you by giving a reply that satisfies you, but it wouldn’t show much. Also note that at temperatures below freezing the actual amount of water vapour in the air i.e. “specific”, not relative, humidity is vanishingly small.
You also ask what % of greenhouse effect is due to water vapour: you can’t calculate iteasily, because it is dependent on the specific humidity and the pressure. That’s why you need a program like MODTRAN with the appropriate data.
What is interesting is that some US companies are world leaders in the remote sensing of gas leaks using aircraft. They can detect CO2 plumes by their IR signature: that wouldn’t be possible if water vapour hid it totally.
BTW where did I diss HM. You guys have really strong imaginations.
Who’s going to try to defend WUWT then?
Hadmattah: 1) you are making too many assumptions about the motives of Jones on the basis of what has been fed to you. You also assume that they had the resources to keep the data.
The Warwick Hughes comment has been bandied around the Internet by deniers for years. Here’s the full e-mail:
“Jones to Hughes, Feb 21, 2005
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
Warwick,Hans Teunisson will reply. He’ll tell you which other people should reply. Hans is”Hans Teunissen”
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others.We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still notpass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I makethe data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.There is IPR to consider.
You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.
Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France doesn’t want theFrench picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data tothe French on France. Same story in most of the others.
Cheers
Phil”
And what about this:
“Feb, 10, 2007 East Anglia Reply
Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can
report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below.
The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National
Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset
and includes raw station data. This site is at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it
appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site.
Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics
Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/
Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit
(CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw
station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give
their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems).
They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but
the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they
do, in fact, possess all our data.
In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a
Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below
Exemption Reason: s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some
information is publicly available on external websites
If you have a complaint about the handling of your enquiry then please contact me at
University of East Anglia
Norwich
You also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at: Information
Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Yours sincerely
David Palmer
Information Policy Officer
University of East Anglia”
http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf
2) “The GWPF accepts that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but wants open, frank debate, that according to the GWPF has so far failed to take place, about what policies should be adopted.”
Yep that’s the sort of sceptics we have in the UK: they went to our schools.
BTW the GWPF was only set up a couple of months ago.
3) Calling it the FOIC is as obvious as writing honor instead of honour, organize instead of organise. And posting it on a Russian site too. You guys are sooo busted.
Why are you guys so terrified about doing anything about AGW? Since Kyoto the EU has cut CO2 emissions by over 10%, just by being more efficient. In the 1980’s I drove a Ford Escort XR3i: 0-60 in about 9 secs, average mpg (uk gallons) 30. Today I drive bigger car, a Nissan P12, same acceleration, slightly higher top speed (which it’s legal to drive at in parts of Europe) and nearly 50 mpg on average. (OK it’s a turbo diesel, so the engine note is crap.) How do we see the US respond: with a bunch of Hummers and SUVs, no wonder that your car sales abroad are dismal.
A salutory lesson maybe: two main oil companies in the UK: BP and Shell. Last year Shaell announced that solar energy would never be commercially viable. BP said it that they making money on solar. What’s the difference between the two? BP invested in solar energy and has patents; Shell didn’t and has to licence technology.
Oi Flashman: I didn’t come here to get embroiled in a debate about AGW: my intention was to comment on the flawed insider theory in the lead article. So calling me a troll for replying to subsequent challenges and questions addressed to me seems a bit harsh especially as you asked me some of those questions.
Must go: I’m off to a town meeting on what sanctions to take against the US for hacking the CRU database. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Oh noze!!!! THE BRITISH ARE COMING THE BRITISH ARE COMING!!!
Will you write us strongly-worded letters?
Will you threaten us with your dentistry?
Force us to eat your food?
Let’s review this, shall we?
-No proof as to who did this nasty bit of hacking has emerged, but they want sanctions against Americans regardless.
-No proof warming is caused by Man’s CO2, but they want santions against everyone.
-The arrival of a toothless twit stamping his little British feet whining and pissing about the illegality of this hack, then proceeds to quote from the same hack.
Piss-off.
P.S. Wanna see the proposal from Hadley to work with Shell?
@ Mata
Thanks Mata, I was wondering if anyone got that. I was pretty sure Turbo was the only one it flew over.
I’m going to work on my asteroid theory. If those guys can get $100 million and not have to prove their research is accurate, surely I can get $50 million. Every secondary school child in Madagascar knows it was the CO² from dinosaur flatulence that attracted the asteroid that wiped out said dinosaurs. I just want to make sure we don’t make the same mistake. Yeah, $50 million shoud cover it.
I have proof that Global warming is caused by the lack of pirates.
-When there were pirates, the planet was cool.
-We killed them, and it got warmer.
-The Somali pirates start up, and it got cool again.
Now pay me.
@MataHarley: You’re right. Our Turdo here has all the officiousness (or maybe oafishness would be better) of Capt. Peacock. A toothless tiger if ever there was one.
As for the WARMER DENIERS who say that there is no organized skeptic movement in Britain, I wonder if it comes from the same folks who pushed the big lie we heard so often in years past that “no credible scientist” disputes the WARMERS alarmism?
You notice how desperate our WARMER friend is to try and set the agenda for discussion with a tiresome spew of acronym laden gobbledygook?
That demonstrates perfectly how the WARMERS have attempted to hijack the science by corrupting even the language behind it.
And as for that raw data, we’ve seen so many examples of how worthless and corrupted most of that has become. Whether it’s the omissions or errors, deliberate or otherwise, or the fanciful idea that planting temperature monitoring stations next to heat sources is a good idea:
So many more here:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
Full report on the temperature monitoring problem here:
http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf
@ Patvann
I don’t know Patvann. Do you have any secondary school children is some country that are well versed in this theory? I have Madagascar.
An for Turboblocke
I know it’s the height of arrogance to tell a Brit how they use their language and all, but it seems Viscount Monckton disagrees with you. He says the UK has a Freedom of Information Act, and what the “scientists” at CRU did is criminal and they will soon find out that very fact for themselves. You can read his very well written remarks HERE at Pajamas Media
He doesn’t really call them “scientists” though. He has a few other choice names for them.
Good primer on the emails here:
@Aqua: Good find! I love Lord Monckton. He sends shivers down the spine of these WARMERS!
An excerpt:
@Patvann, …. too funny, guy. Followed rapidly by your undisputable evidence of global warming linked to the existance of piracy! What a hoot to the morning’s start.
Meanwhile Turbo’half’charged is running half-cocked to a town meeting to demand something be done for “…the US for hacking the CRU database.”
uh… Turbo…what was that he said? Oh yes…
uhhh…mmmm….. right ho, mate.
The lynch mob remark was, of course, right on the heels of the Brit twit’s lecture on how it’s oh so wrong to condemn based on speculation. Rather like speculation of an email handle is “evidence” of guilt. oh my
Well, maybe that razor thin “proof” plays well in Britain’s parallel sharia law courts, resulting in a good stoning or loss of limb or two. But somehow I doubt a western court system and/or diplomatic office will bite on Turbo’half-charged’s poison apple. But we certainly see his political science stance, his feelings towards the US, and his forked tongue quite clearly. This, of course, makes his every cyber utterance a question mark for truth and intent/motive.
Speaking of the speculation game, note Curt’s post of email text, and the use of FoI. By golly… that must be proof positive that Turbo’half-cocked is actually a CRU employee, desperately covering his tracks… right? After all it was he and his mates who “never” refer to it as FOIA.
Since I’m quite sure he doesn’t know everyone in the UK, we have to be speaking about his circle of associates. So I’m here to aver firm speculation that Turbo’s a CRU employee/mole/troll – here to defend their dastardly deeds and distract from the expose’ and start a “lynch mob” mentality instead. LOL
Aqua, no problem. I speak and comprehend your English quite well. Just thought it was another snobby remark to portray you as “asking” anything, then lecture the rest of us (or me, specifically) on comprehension. Worthy of a BS call, don’t you think?
Ya know, Mike’s A, Capt. Peacock really might be closer…. but Peacock had some very likeable qualities. So far, Turbo the Brilliant, demonstrates no redeeming qualities. So I still think that insulting any cast member is simply unthinkable!
That’s odd: where’s my last post gone?
If my posts are being blocked that’s not playing fair.
To recap: there was no town meeting. It was a trap to get some good quotes from you guys: like PV’s: “-No proof as to who did this nasty bit of hacking has emerged, but they want sanctions against Americans regardless. ”
And now MH’s:” The lynch mob remark was, of course, right on the heels of the Brit twit’s lecture on how it’s oh so wrong to condemn based on speculation. Rather like speculation of an email handle is “evidence” of guilt. oh my
Well, maybe that razor thin “proof” plays well in Britain’s parallel sharia law courts, resulting in a good stoning or loss of limb or two. But somehow I doubt a western court system and/or diplomatic office will bite on Turbo’half-charged’s poison apple.”
Thanks Guys shows how even handed you are: you have no evidence that a crime was committed and on the basis of a few e-mails you condemn the scientists. I threaten to convict you on similarly wafer thin evidence and you call foul. Buy a mirror.
Here’s a thought: those 1000 e-mails cover over 10 years and there are many people involved. Do you really believe you’re getting a fair picture.
Turbo’half-charged sez:
The basis of a few emails? Laughable. The “evidence” of nefarious back room data manipulation and the concerted effort at stifling debate has been mounting for years, as noted in my July 2008 post. The distribution of this database only lends more credence to the agenda driven “science”.
Turbo, on the other hand, rests his speculation on the choice of a cyber handle. Count me duly unimpressed.
Aqua nailed it perfectly. It’s 10 years (at least) of history of massive cover up to meet a political agenda.
Speaking of Aqua and Turbo’s inability to comprehend…
And here I thought the Brits held a monopoly on sarcasm and dry wit. Guess not….
@ Turboblocke
Yes. A picture of people that have spent the last ten years trying to build an agenda, not do scientific research. It is really that simple Turboblocke. Nothing more, nothing less. If they want their data taken seriously, they want others to be able to duplicate it. That is how science works…period. You want people to challenge your findings, because you have the scientific proof to back up your claims.
Mike: you really should have a look at my post 47 and go to http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
WUWT has fooled a lot of people: you don’t have to be one.
MH: Lawsons think tank was set up in August this year: just in time to FUD before Copenhagen.
Still don’t understand why Aqua’s “Why hide the raw data if you have nothing to hide.” is not considered a question.
Turdo
But here’s the thing twinkee…I do have evidence of cover-ups. Lot’s of it right from the source’s keyboard. It’s begun to come down to which ones will make the biggest splash so that we can shut them up permanently, and you along with them. (After you complete therapy, of course)
And if all you want is quotes of of mine, I gotta a million of them lined up and ready. No need to lie first and play tricksies, I’ll tell you them right up front!
I guess living so close to all the lying bags of crap at Hadley has rubbed off on you. If you noticed buttmunch, none of us took you serious, nor does anyone really give a fig.
Now if you’re quite done playing child-games, I think I hear your mum calling.
I have never understood the conservative dogma as it relates to global warming. You folks mean to tell me that you think all the burning of carbon fuels is a NEUTRAL to the environment? Hmm . . . interesting.
I will not try to argue here about the “flat earther” approach to global warming; it is dogma that no amount of science will ever. But I do have one question: Japan, hardly a “leftist”, “ant9o-capitalistic” country has been working on more efficient electricity production, low-carbon economic and industrial policy. They are taking the science to heart. So if man-made global warming is some kind of lefty California tree-hugger plot with no real “scientifiuc basis” as you folks claim . . . then why was Japan convinced enough start going green years ago?
Perhaps, billy bob, you don’t understand the “dogma” because you think in extremes and black and white. Substitute “neutral” with “negligable” and you’re closer to understanding.
Why more efficient electric production and better emission controls? Air quality, not global warming. I daresay most of us are good with improving air quality as long as it’s not cost prohibitive for consumer energy costs. And there is little that is more stable and efficient for production costs than oil and natural gas…. neither of which the warmers advocate developing. Coal also offers great possibilities.
Warmists, however, go to the extreme for erroneous reasons, and care little about the economic repercussions vs the tangible results.
@ B-Rob
Yeah? I don’t understand the left thinking everything is a matter of life and death and that you need to lie to promote your agenda. Healthcare – do it now or we’re doomed. Global Warming – go green now, or we’re doomed.
Ever been to Tokyo? I have. You can cut the air with a knife. I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t want to find more energy efficient ways to produce power. Do you honestly think there are people on the right that sit up a night and dream of ways to ensure power production pollutes the globe as much as possible? By the same token, people on the left continously thwart efforts by energy producers to modernize. Try to build a nuke plant, get sued. Try to build a modern refinery, get sued. Look in the mirror B-Rob, your side is the problem. And the only solution you guys have is to declare the sky is falling.
Dang, Aqua… a minute apart in our posts and saying about the same thing…. Great minds, ya know! LOL
B-Rob
I have a question for you.
What would it take for you to believe you’ve been lied to in regard to the recent warming?
I ask this in all seriousness.
@ Mata
I saw that. It’s synchronicity. Curt should change the Weekly Open Thread Pic from a Cheetah guarding her cubs to some Cheetahs ready to pounce on global warming caribou.
“2nd East Anglia Refusal, Apr 12, 2007
In regards the “gridded network” stations, I have been informed that the Climate
Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed
principally from data available on the two websites identified in my letter of 12 March
2007. Our estimate is that more than 98% of the CRU data are on these sites.
The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of data CRU has collected
from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to
these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw
station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and
these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU
web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the
database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be
exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological
Organization has a list of all NMSs.”
Taken from Climate Audit here: http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf
If you read all the correspondence you can see how the FOI request was perceived as harrassment by CRU: everytime they gave McI info, he just asked for more in more detail. Even when told that it was publically available, he demanded it from them and wouldn’t look for it himself. Even when told it wasn’t theirs to give he demanded it, rather than going to the actual owners of the data.
And as you can see from the above its only 2% of the data he couldn’t get. What do you imagine it hides?
B-Rob It’s not just Japan. In my missing post, I asked why is the US so scared of combatting AGW. In the EU we have reduced emissions by 10% with no loss of standard of living by being more efficient. In the 1980’s I drove a Ford Escort XR3i, 0-60 in 9.7 seconds, average fuel consumption of 30mpg (UK gallons). My daily driver now is a Nissan Primera P12, 0-60 in about the same time, bigger car, higher top speed (which I can actually use in Germany) and 50mpg. (OK it’s a diesel, so sounds crap, but it pulls like a train). Oh yes and it will go round corners too. 😉
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
Latest press release from UEA.
Latest release from Patvann:
Gee Mick. If I ever broached the idea to fudge data, my boss would have fired me on the spot. Your boss is waaaay more “cool” than mine.
Were you saying something Turdo?
ROTFLMAO! Okay, I just can’t resist…
from the British leming’s link… spin from the Pro-Vice Chancellor of CRU
From the “stolen” material, as posted by PatVann
Priceless….
Here’s the extra hoot…. if global warming is all the rage, why isn’t Jones hanging out in Greenland (where he can document where it’s supposed to be getting warmer) instead of Iceland (where it’s already “warm”)??
Oh what a tangled web we weave… most of us have figured out their game a few years ago. However we do give Phil and company a H/T for their own confirmation of the corruption.
🙂
And that’s not even from the “Goodstuff” file.
As the great philosopher Bugs Bunny said:
“Ehh… He don’t know me very well, do he?…Watta maroon!”
Hopefully, Patvann, you and family are saving the commercial zinger for the ever-anticipated “post”.
BTW… big toe is developing calluses from tapping, tapping tapping. But I am ever patient for thorough materials, and well armed with a “Ped-Egg” as a temporary solution!
Oh yeah. It’ll be good.
The writing has begun, while being interspersed with actual life. 🙂
(Me and wifey are now foster-folks of a young lady aiming to go into the Corps)
Messin with this clown-car driving Brit, is so bloody FUN!!!
Patvann quoted: “Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk…”
A public talk ain’t the same as peer-reviewed science.
Next please…
(BTW back to the pissing contest are we? OK then on the subject of clown cars: what’s the name of the US Formula 1 racing team again which so convincingly won the World Championship er whenever it was, with er whatshisname at the wheel? Oh deary me, there wasn’t one. )
@ Turboblocke
That’s funny. Getting spanked in the debate so you move to Formula 1 racing? We got Danica Patrick. We’re Americans. We don’t need to win Formula 1, we just need to see Danica get in and out of the car. You guys really have your priorities mixed up over there.
I hope one of our wonderful moderators embeds this. It is hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
[You got it, M.A.]
Funny how our Climate Criminal, the WARMER Turboblocke , talks about “peer-reviewed science “ while at the same time commenting on a post where the other Climate Criminals openly discuss ways to corrupt that very process.
Thanks Aqua: you make an interesting point (well two actually.) Google offered me the option of “danica patrick swimsuit” which I accepted in Google Images. Bliss. 🙂
FWIW I only mentioned F1 because of some silly clowncar comment.
MA I guess you haven’t been following the discussion elsewhere which puts these e-mails into context. You might have been justified in making your comment a few day ago but now that the context has been revealed, your interpretation seems a bit extreme.
Shame about the video: let me refer you back to Harry Flashman’s question at 26 “1.Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?”
And my post 30 “Assuming you’re right about the CO2 increase and the global cooling (which is a cherry pick, which I won’t go into now): the Earth’s climate is complex with many influences, there are natural causes of climate change and man made ones. In this question you are postulating that the only influence on temperature is CO2. Do you really believe that? If you do believe it, you are wrong. If you don’t believe it, why ask this question?”
So Aqua: do you accept the video as a clear and true representation of the facts?
If anyone wants to discuss AGW in a civilised environment you’re welcome to come here: http://boards.fool.co.uk/Messages.asp?bid=51649
@Turboblocke lectures: ” MA I guess you haven’t been following the discussion elsewhere which puts these e-mails into context. “
Clearly in your mind the issues raised in ALL these emails are a dead issue. What a surprise. You’re still not able to accept that the Sun is the driver of climate change on earth so your objectivity is questionable.
We don’t need these emails to know that you climate criminals have been actively trying to discredit the skeptics and have done your best to keep their work from being published in peer reviewed journals. The evidence on this issue is so overwhelming that it’s not even a debatable point.
On that point at least the debate is over: you climate criminals and eco-fascists have done everything you can to silence any and all opposition.
You don’t represent science. You represent world socialism.
@ Turboblocke
I accept the video for what it is, funny. As for global warming or climate change, I want the facts. Not made up facts, not facts that are manipulated, just the facts.
I’m a telecommunications engineer. As such, I’m very interested in the weather and the sun’s solar activity. Solar flares, and atmospheric ducting tend to play havoc with terrestrial microwave. So, besides having the weather channel up all the time, there is another site I look at almost daily. I don’t see how anyone could look at this site and tell me the sun doesn’t play a major role in our climate. http://www.solarcycle24.com/
No matter what else you read in the emails Turboblocke, you have to admit the information from CRU and our boys here at Goddard is less than forthcoming. When you actively work to keep skeptics from looking at your data and only allow those with the same agenda to peer review your work, you undermine the scientific process. Once you do that, it is very difficult to regain the public trust.
If you want to know why we are currently in a cooling pattern and why we were previously in a heating pattern, look at the website I provided. It’s all about the sunspots.
Formula 1. How inefficient. All that fuel used, made from foodstuffs, that should have gone to starving kids in Leeds. Get with the science.
1000 hp per liter, no petrol used.
@Patvann: You mean this?
Full size image here:
http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu80/Patvann/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c.png
You have to use the direct link to images. The embed code won’t work for you. Maybe we can talk to Curt about that?
Thank you kind sir.
Now that I know which format to use, I may have better luck.
Interesting gragh, no?
@Patvann: There are so many reasons why CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming. You’ve just added one more.
Behind it all is the fact that we do not yet understand how the climate works. Clearly the climate criminals have it wrong. Their models are so deeply flawed that they must hide the truth as best they can. And yet, they continue to insist we must embark on a course which drastically alters our lifestyle, our economic system and our system of governance.
Based solely on scaremongering, not science.
The most blatant part of the hypocrisy is their supposed “cure”.
This “cure” consists of handing money over to the UN to redistribute, while never reducing the “Scary Gas of Doom” one bit. Meanwhile REAL pollution like sulfur is ignored, and in-fact being mused within Hadley as a “cure” for GloBull Worming by using it to block sunlight!
Here’s a little factoid to think over: The 16 largest container ships in the world emit as much Sulfur as 880 million cars…That’s all the cars in the world. There are over 100,000 container/tanker ships of various sizes. The UN gives these ships a “pass” because they are registered in countries deemed “developing” like Panama. The ships could easily be run on low-sulfur diesel, but use Bunker-oil instead. The by-product of this combustion leaves sludge, which they empty into the ocean, once they are away from shore. (While in port, they are usually switched to cleaner diesel from a separate holding-tank.)
Of course, Turdo will now come back with something along the lines of: “Good thing we’ve let them spew sulfur, or the planet would REALLY be hot by now!” Ignoring the thousands of people who die from lung-damage, and the millions of trees killed by acid-rain every year.
Then there’s this pathetic defense:
So lying to the public (including himself) is seen as “acceptable” as long as one doesn’t lie to a fellow scientist. (Whom they are allowed to chose to do the peer- review, unlike any other scientific submission, in any other discipline.)
THIS is seen by him as such a worthy stance that he concludes it with the quip:
Gee. He’s got me now. I surrender to settled science.
My poor inbox. All I see anymore when I open it, is Flopping Aces comments.
Is whats ‘is name still beating a dead horse? tubboblocked? Is he ever going to stop repeating the lie?
@Otter asks: ” ‘is name still beating a dead horse? tubboblocked? Is he ever going to stop repeating the lie? “
Of course he’s not going to stop. This isn’t science to these climate criminals it’s both a religion and a huge moneymaker.
@Patvann: Correct you are. None of these supposed “cures” will do anything to reduce carbon emissions. They’ll just tax it instead.
It’s all about the money.
And not one of them can HONESTLY say that if we were to cap carbon it would make the slightest difference on our climate.
There seems to be a delay in my posts arriving so I’m a bit out of phase with your comments. I assume that my one about the Sun is still pending as I write this at 22h00 Central european Time.
I see that you claim that peer reviewed science is biased… and yet you claim that the theory has been falsified on the basis of a list of what look to be peer reviewed papers. Er, run that by me one more time.
First let me make it clear that I don’t know who you are so I would prefer to assume that you are acting in good faith. I may get tetchy and wind you up from time to time, but only if you persist with pissing contests and insults. However I am not really impressed by that “proof”.
Let me look closer at your list: looks to me that your anti-IPCC literature is no later than 1992. So why isn’t there anything younger on your side there? Maybe modern science has found out something in the last 17 years. see here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118533123/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Matthews_Caldeira_%20Instant%20zero%20C%20GRL2008.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full
http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/kzickfeld/PDFS/eby_lifetime_09.pdf
I have another objection to your “proof”. Why should the fact that you have more papers outweigh the IPCC: are you saying that when the consensus is on your side it wins, but doesn’t when you don’t agree with it?
I save my most severe condemnation of your “proof” to last: the IPCC is a synthesis of the science: it doesn’t do any research itself. Therefore when you claim X papers proves the “one” IPCC report wrong, you are ignoring the fact that the IPCC report is based on many papers. So whoever created that graph is either unaware of how the IPCC works or assuming that you don’t know and is pulling the wool over your eyes.
They is a lot of political ranting in the above. I can catagorically state that there is no plan for a one world government. Given that we need one black helicopter per thousand people and population growth is 75 million/year we haven’t got the manufacturing capacity. Even commandeering all existing helicopters and painting them black would only give us two months grace. 😉
No seriously, where do you get this idea that it’s all a socialist plot to tax you and give the money to the third world?
You can certainly “categorically state” anything, Turbo. That, however, does not equate to being correct.
Since I know you’ll love to diss Lord Monckton, let’s examine what he says about your rewording of “one world government”.
Let’s have a look at the text of the proposed treaty with all the fill-in-the-blanks sentences.. Starting at the bottom of pg 18 the first reference to an international government:
Government “ruled by the COP”… the Conference of the Parties. Or, better put, this international bureacracy is “ruled” by unelected representatives from the UNFCCC members who’s goal is to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
And what about that other “ruling” entity, the “executive board”, and it’s body, the EBFTA (Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Adaptation? That’s the group who holds the reins on the Adaptive Fund money, manages the certification system to receive funding, handle technology transfers, governs a Mitigation Fund, and other sundry money funds this intergovernmental body of unelected sorts creates. More on that on pg 141.
This “Executive Board” and it’s bodies answer to the “ruling” government/COP. These unelected COP powerhouses also get to “elect” the government representatives on the EBFTA technical panels that answer to the Executive Board.
We’re getting downright inbred with those bestowed with such power sans elections from the individual party States. But keep in mind these sundry technical subpanels, who’s membership comes from an election by unelected COP international “government” rulers.
This brings us to the words… “legally binding”. No treaty and bureacratic monstrosity has any teeth unless it has the powers of enforcement. Back to the much maligned Lord Monckton:
This potpourri of “technical panels” in this international government bureaucracy is vaguely described starting on pg 142.
Of special note is the “compliance” section…. also to be construed as an enforcement mechanism… starting on pg 145 of the preliminary treaty text. And for this, reporting to the secretariat is required with annual review by the Board of the Mutilateral Fund, who then reports to that “ruling” government body, the COP.
This BMF panel then defines the non-compliance standards, and penalties and fines… or a combination of the two…. who then can impose financial penalties, at a minimum of ten times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess of the level implied by the emissions reduction commitment.
Can you say unintended consequences? Or, perhaps more accurately described as … *intended* consequences with vague language masking that intent.
You may aver all you wish, Turbo. However the creation of this int’l government body of unelected bureaucrats, the power to control the money and impose fines, is nothing short of a world government that controls a huge sector of each State’s economy.
Now, as a caveat…. battling about the fill-in-the-blanks treaty is much like debating O’healthcare, of which there is no specific bill language and points to argue. What we have in Copenhage is very much the same… a disaster in the planning stages.
PolitiFact labels Lord Monckton’s comments a “britches on fire” lie. Not because what he says is false, but because there are no treaty specifics and that “… it’s impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen”.
Well dang.. this is like saying you’ll be killed when hit by a dump truck loaded with boulders, and someone else saying that’s a bald faced lie because until you’re hit by the truck, how do you know?
sigh
PolitiFact also finds it hard to believe the US would yield such sovereignty. Guess they haven’t looked around at the latest US political climate and the partisan make up of the US Congress. Aside from some “naw, couldn’t happen” absurdity, there is one viable comment INRE the Copenhagen treat that has credibility. And that’s the fact that a State can sign the treaty, however it has to be ratified by the State’s legislative (US Congress) body prior to being binding.
Personally, I’m not willing to risk that with our current Congress leadership.
However one thing is abundantly clear. Turbo is nothing short of delusional if he emphatically states there is “no one world government” attempt being made at Copenhagen. Quite the opposite.
The burning question will be, wil the US go along with a “one world government” bureaucracy that focuses on climate change? If voted on today, and with Pelosi/Reid/Obama occupying the appropriate bully pulpits, that answer would have to be a definitive “yes”.
@Turboblocke: “where do you get this idea that it’s all a socialist plot to tax you and give the money to the third world? “
You’ve got to be kidding.
Seriously, what planet are you living on? Whichever one is it I bet it’s WARMING too.
@Turdo
From the ADAM second-order draft PDF. Page 15, line 676 though 682
FOIA release, under “documents”.
(Mike, could check on stuck posts please?)
Done, Patvann… with pleasure. Mata
This film discusses the issue of one world government in detail and the role that climate criminals are playing in it’s implementation:
First comment: there is no point in my attempting to answer the points you raise if my posts are not getting through. Would a moderator please check that they’re noy getting blocked somewhere?
So far you’ve missed my quip about drag racing: done and dusted in a couple of seconds wouldn’t impress the ladies in Europe much 😉
and my rebuttal of “It’s the Sun”
I’m not going to delve deeply into Monkton, but the phrase you quote ” 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.”
talks of three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism,..
In this case “government” is to be interpreted as a regulating mechanism: if it had been a Government, then how could it be “ruled by the COP”?
And NO international treaty takes away National Sovereignty. Full stop. How would any country be forced to comply to a treaty it does like? Look at Kyoto: the USA signed it about 15 years ago… and has done nothing since, where are the sanctions because of that?
@Turboblocke:
I just checked, and there was only one piece of spam sitting there. Nothing else. Don’t know when you posted, but I hope you saved the comment. Maybe you can try publishing it again?
Thanks for looking, Wordsmith. I didn’t save my comments, but will do so in the future. Any idea why there appears to be a few hours delay before they appear?
Back to what Patvann said at 96…
“Then there’s this pathetic defense:
A public talk ain’t the same as peer-reviewed science.
So lying to the public (including himself) is seen as “acceptable” as long as one doesn’t lie to a fellow scientist.”
Well I don’t know who he was going to address, but maybe he didn’t want to be sidetracked or maybe he didn’t think the audience would understand the following “There are natural and manmade influences on the climate; When they work together you get a super hot year like 1998. Naturally you can’t expect them to work together all the time, so temperatures will vary. At the moment the manmade element is of about the same magnitude as natural influences, so it can be masked by them.However, we are in a transient situation, as all the warming due to AGW has not yet been seen; If we reach equilibrium at current levels of CO2, the manmade effect will dominate the natural variation, which will still cause global temperature to have peaks and valleys.”
In 96 Patvann also said”Here’s a little factoid to think over: The 16 largest container ships in the world emit as much Sulfur as 880 million cars…That’s all the cars in the world.”
What he didn’t say was: there is no sulphur in petrol, nor in LPG. There is a negligable amount of sulphur in bio diesel, a little in Low Sulphur diesel and a bit more in normal diesel. So does Patvann apply the same standards to himself as to other people?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel
As regards Panama in the same post: that does rather show that national sovereignty takes precedence over international agreements doen’t it? All countries can do is limit the type of fuel burnt in their national waters. I understand that there is a WMO agreement on the cards: http://www.airclim.org/policy/sub6_4.php However, as with regulations on cleaning tanks at sea: the ships that contravene the regulations will be prosecuted, where applicable, not the country where they are registered.
@Turboblocke:
If there’s a delay, then you’ve most likely been fished out of spam when one of us finally logs in and checks to empty the bin. Sometimes comments end up “pending for review” either because of too manly links or if someone’s being moderated (I doubt anyone’s put you under moderation- that’s reserved for trolls), I think.
@Wordsmith: I haven’t seen any of his comments in spam but then I don’t always check too often. Besides, seems to me he’s just getting further and further down in the weeds on this thread. Now citing WIKIPEDIA, which has about the same credibility as climate criminals who perpetrated this WARMER fraud on mankind.
Fine Mike: why an insult, instead of a substantive reply?
You are right that Wiki comes with caveats, that’s why one should always look at the references. However in the case of my post above, how does citing Wiki detract from my argument that Patvann didn’t give full disclosure: not only didn’t he mention the lack of sulphur in many of the cars’ fuels, he also didn’t mention duty cycle: ships operating 24/7 for weeks on end, cars only operating one or two hours a day maybe. What about cars still registered but off road: I’m renovating 2 cars that are still registered but neither has moved for years. All these points weaken his argument: why didn’t he disclose them?
I hope he never has to go to court. “Mr. Patvann, how do you plead?” “Your honour, I plead not guilty. However, to be consist with the standards I apply to others I have to disclose that I did do it.”
BTW I only came on this thread to comment on the insider meme that originated in the USA. I didn’t want to get in a substantive discussion on AGW. However, being brought up to be polite, I thought it would be discouteous not to reply to questions directed at me. This is “your” site, so if I’m upsetting people and you would like me to leave, just make a polite request and I’ll leave you alone.
Best regards.
Turbo, when I log in… which seems to be more and more infrequent of late with my work schedule… I always check the spam filter. I’ve bailed out many a regular, and quite a few of Patvann’s comments back to you on this thread. Never figure out what triggers it, but if I’m not logged in, I’ve found myself having to log in and bail myself out of the spam filter as well.
So the upshot of it all is, don’t take it personally. We’ve all landed in the garbage bin at one time or another. And several of us check the spam filter regularly when logged on.
@Turboblocke: Is it an insult to point out how Wikipedia’s credibility is about as questionable as the climate criminals whose words you cling to?
I don’t think so. It’s an accurate observation.
@Turdo
Your Honor, I plead guilty due to boredom-by-sycophant. That, and the constant circular-logic arguments have made be dizzy to the point of wretching everytime I click on his posts.
@Patvann: Yeah, I think the arguments have run their course. Perhaps we can start it all up again when you post your excerpts from the emails or when I get around to posting on what possible investigations will be made necessary by the scandal we have all remarked upon.
P.S. @Turboblocke, it’s a holiday here in the U.S. so you might find a slower response time to your comments. It’s our day of Thanksgiving were we celebrate the fact that we were born and live in the greatest country God ever put on this earth.
@Mike
I’m sure you’ve noticed that even though I have posted some juicy excerpts, he won’t comment on those, or does so obliquely. Religious fanatics have nothing on these people.
Patvann, I don’t bother with vaporlocke’s posts. It’s clear he WANTS to believe in spite of strong evidence to the contrary about AWG. There is no talking with people like him.
You can’t talk rationally with someone who didn’t reach their conclusion rationally.
@Patvann: I did notice that. It sort of like the leaders of this pack of climate criminals who willfully omit from consideration any bit of information which undermines their conclusion.
It’s the opposite of the scientific method where a hypothesis is tested.
The same folks who used to falsely claim that “no credible scientist” disputes their claims are now being exposed as having no credibility themselves.
Sorry Mike: I thought down in the weeds was an obscure insult.
With all sincerity, I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving with your loved ones.
As I mention above, there is suspicion that the hacker came from the US and this whole FUD is to mess up Copenhagen.
On a hunch, I put “Climategate” in Google insights. The result shows enormous interest in the USA and little or none elsewhere. At a deeper level, California is the major source of these searches in the USA. WUWT?
What’s the old poker saying? “If you can’t identify the pigeon in the game, it’s you.”
Is he babbling again? Should I break out in a string of incomprehensible acronyms? WTF?
WUWT = Watts up with that
FUD = fear, uncertainty, doubt
WTF? What’s tea for? Drinking, not dunking (in the habour) 😉
Ya caught me Turdo. I live in Cali, and your evidence is so overwhelming I feel I must come clean.
-I hacked it, and my rather large family is initiating the searches. Give my apologies to Phil.
@MataHarley #112:
I’ve fished Patvann out as well; seems to end up in there quite a bit. Missy, too.
Oh, that’s happened to me on occasion. Usually, I’ll wait for a while to see how long it takes one of y’all to rescue my comment…but after 5 minutes of tapping my foot, I lose patience and finally go in there myself.
@Turboblocke: You might want to reload the main page:
http://www.floppingaces.net/
Plenty of new angles on this story posted and no comments from you. Can we assume that your silence is acquiescence with the views presented? Or are you simply out of acronyms?
@Word
I wonder if some of my stuff gets stuck because of the embedded e-mail links, and/or over-all length?
I we knew what the algorithm/rule was within the software that tells it to put a hold on posts was, we could try to avoid putting in those “markers”.
It’s rather scary (and frustrating) to work on a post for a relatively long time , then wonder if it “evaporated”. For my own “fix”, I’ve started keeping a copy in a Word-Doc just in case. When I see the italicized “Your post is in moderation” it’s no worries, but no feedback at all gives me the willies.
@Patvann: I don’t think overall length is the problem. It seems that links are the trigger. I make it a practice to do a CTRL-A/CTRL-C (select comment text and copy) before posting just in case.
I too have to dig myself out of spam from time to time. Curt has tried numerous fixes for these problems but none are perfect.
The best solution is one you already follow: when you post a comment and don’t see it immediately displayed drop a simple (no links) reminder in the next comment window. It’s also a good idea that once your original comment posts to go back and delete the request.
MA: I’ve been trying to disengage from this site for a while now. It’s a bit awkward with the time difference.
As you suggested I looked at the front page. NIWA story is a fabrication: the data was released 3 years ago but they are pretending that they haven’t seen in. Wow that’s an interesting tactic.
The Aussies who resigned have gone against the wishes of the voters who have been inundating the party with e-mails and phone calls. Effectively, their actions have destroyed an opposition party which will now probably split making Rudd’s government even stronger.
Rudd is a politician with balls. read this speech: even if you disagree with what he’s saying and I bet you will, you have to admit that in this day and age of weasel words and two faced politicians, he’s got balls.
http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6305
I hope you guys had a good holiday and wish you health, wealth and happiness in the future.
I’m out of here.
Could one of the mods, please, stop me getting e-mail notifications, it’s only because of them that I keep coming back?
Turbo…check the emails, they usually have a opt-out link at the bottom
@Turboblocke: What? You’re quitting and going home? What’s wrong? Run out of acronyms?
What a shame! Just when I thought we might wear out your standard repertoire of climate criminal approved talking points and actually reach you with an ounce of reason!
Well, come back when you get rested up and we’ll make another attempt to introduce you to sane environmental policy based on science, not politics!
P.S. Curt: We should sign him up for regular emails from Sarah PAC.
MA: the fact that you didn’t know the acronyms for the four main groups who measure global temperature: HADCRUT, GISS, UAH and RSS is not a particularly convincing sign of your depth of knowledge. I understood from your response at 43 that you found that my responses were above ” cab driver” level and that you found this distressing.
I have no wish to inflict any more trauma on you as I have deduced from your responses that you are of a sensitive nature and I wish to apologise if your preducies and preconceived notions have been in anyway disturbed by any of my above posts. If you have been in anyway disconcerted by my attempts to introduce you to the benefits of logical thinking, then I am truely sorry
not to have been there to see it. 😉
(The above is a work of fiction and any resmblence to persons living or dead is a coincidence.)
Now lighten up.
@ #130, What a bunch of sanctimonious and self-righteous bull shit.
@Turboblocke: Once again your failure in basic logic underpins the fallacy in nearly ALL your arguments. Who says I didn’t understand your alphabet soup?
As I said, recalling the words of my old professor at Columbia, if you can’t make your arguments clear to ALL, then it’s likely that you really don’t know what you are talking about.
Pre-programmed as you are to spout the talking points of pseudo-science you come across as arrogant and willfully ill-informed. Exactly like the climate criminals you are defending who refuse to consider any information which undermines the conclusions they have already drawn.
When it comes to “preducies and preconceived notions” you’ve demonstrated that you prefer to cling to your own rather than engage in an honest examination of the issue.
Again, I invite you to comment on the newer threads of posts on this subject. You might learn something; including a little humility and perhaps develop a better argument in the process.
Unless of course you prefer to remain one of the real “flat earthers” and “deniers” stubbornly clinging to a failed scientific fraud when all but you can see it for what it is.
Guys guys guys. Ease up on the poor lad, he’s lost his religion, and that has GOT to be traumatic in a way that we can not fathom.
Turdo. To ease your transition, might I recommend Wiccan. The girls smell about the same, they have better chants and songs, and rather than the fat ugly strip-mine-owning, heir to Occidental Petroleum Gore as a Prophet, they have the soothing sounds of the wind moving through the trees.
This slick app has already attracted more than 1,500 users till now.
i – Phone is one of the best successful case of most advanced technology these
days that helps to earn more money. These applications offer an easy and simple platform to connect with people and expand your social circle.
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my site thus i got here to go back the prefer?.I
am trying to in finding things to improve my website!I suppose its adequate to use some of your ideas!!
Mike America
HI, that is a very interesting POST,from 2009 is a winner,
it”s interesting when one who challenge the posters is not going away on the the rebuff,
we have to notice that he was a learned adversary,
thank you for what this post is, an exchange of good will and good manner from all the posters,
it made this post alive still today in 2014,
I WAS HERE THEN BUT MISS THIS POST DUE TO MY POOR ENGLISH,
PREVENTING ME TO MAKE MY POINT THEN,
but I am still here enjoying the old POSTS WHICH SOMEONE BRING TO TODAY, SOMETIMES,
and i find that MOTHER NATURE DID A DAM GOOD JOB SINCE 2009,
BEST TO YOU, MISS YOUR POSTS, THE ONE YOU CAN BRING TODAY TO THE OLDER POSTERS,
OF 2009, WOULD BE GREAT TO BE PART OF IT,
BEST TO YOU,
What’s up colleagues, how is everything, and what you wish
for to say concerning this piece of writing, in my view
its truly awesome for me.
CURT
I did enjoyed reading this post, and heard all my friends of that 2009 time,
IT WAS HUMORISTIC ALSO, you all have master the art of mixing humor with ,
any other talk back, so to hit the Turmolock clock, without letting blood spill,
I miss you still today,the essense of it is un comparable,
you gave many chuckle to the readers who come from the future and you gave learning,
from BRITAIN TO AMERICA, and from 2009 to 2014,
I loved every line of this POST,
thank you CURT, for FLOPPING ACES,
it remind me of my first entry and experience in such a GOOD BLOG,
I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your blog.
It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to
come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your
theme? Excellent work!
Hey! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that
would be okay. I’m absolutely enjoying your blog
and look forward to new posts.