Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[Straybow]

[Q=notyoueither;5717339]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1389842/

That position has led some of his colleagues to attack him. This week, several said in Internet posts that such transparency would be unworkable because the matter of climate is too urgent and the stakes too high to allow skeptics to have any influence on policy.

That, Prof. Hulme said, is exactly the attitude that led to the sort of questionable practices chronicled in the CRU e-mails.

[/Q] It is the reason why we should shut the climate change whackos out of the policy debate, too. They've presented their data, now tell them to go away. The rest of us get to decide if it's worth trillions of dollars to slow climate change by a few percentage points—and it isn't.

[Straybow]

[Q=Drake Tungsten;5713211]

Yeah, the data.

[/Q] Climate alarmists a dozen years ago used eleven data points taken from three sample collection flights from a single geographical location in a single year to claim the north pole was "certain" to show an ozone hole. There was no there there.

These guys surveyed three trees on a peninsula in Siberia, and want us to treat their data and their interpretations as some kind of holy word from on high.

[Straybow]

DP

[KrazyHorse]

Is your grasp of the data behind modern climatology as astute as your understanding of special relativity?

[Kuciwalker]

[HalfLotus]

As I suspected, the "Russian hackers" story is a ruse.

Comprehensive network analysis shows Climategate likely to be a leak

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course a denier website like WUWT is going to claim that the Russian hacker reports are a lie.

[HalfLotus]

It's actually from smalldeadanimals.com. Analysis is by "a Unix, Windows, OS X and Linux systems and network administrator for 15 years."

[Drake Tungsten]

Very convincing...

[Straybow]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5717500]Is your grasp of the data behind modern climatology as astute as your understanding of special relativity?[/Q] I know that looking at the last thirty years and ignoring the last 3000 years isn't "modern climatology," it is politically motivated revisionism. I know that if you have to fudge the data after 1961 because it doesn't show what you want it to show, that isn't "modern climatology." If you're doing it to obtain funding and influence government spending for your goals it is fraud.

Modern climatology shows that this warming isn't much different from what happened a thousand years ago (that's called "data"), long before man's activities were adding any significant measure of CO2.

[HalfLotus]

Very convincing...

And Daily Mail is? It's an online tabloid.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Daily Mail was John Lennon's favorite newspaper.

[HalfLotus]

+1 for John Lennon.

However, the Russian connection appears to be pretty loose:

...the folder containing the files – with the URL "ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip" - was deposited on the "incoming" data storage section of a tomcity.ru server, a section which is accessible to any internet user in the world with access to the world-wide web. It requires neither the knowledge nor the permission of the server-owner for material to be thus deposited.

...

this is a publicly-accessible server which can be reached from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, Russian servers are particularly attractive to people who wish to lodge material on the internet anonymously, as the Russian authorities are distinctly unhelpful when it comes to revealing the addresses of computers used to upload material onto servers in their territory.

Thus, the fact that the material was placed on a Russian server gives no clue whatsoever as to the identity of the person (or persons) who uploaded the material, or of their location."

From http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...eculation.html

[Lorizael]

HalfLotus, your ability to completely ignore past arguments is commendable.

[KrazyHorse]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5717500]Is your grasp of the data behind modern climatology as astute as your understanding of special relativity?[/Q] I know that looking at the last thirty years and ignoring the last 3000 years isn't "modern climatology," it is politically motivated revisionism. I know that if you have to fudge the data after 1961 because it doesn't show what you want it to show, that isn't "modern climatology." If you're doing it to obtain funding and influence government spending for your goals it is fraud.

Modern climatology shows that this warming isn't much different from what happened a thousand years ago (that's called "data"), long before man's activities were adding any significant measure of CO2.

Is your grasp of the data behind modern climatology as astute as your understanding of special relativity?

.