Anthony Watts has posted this -
East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars by results of latest FOIA ruling and investigation
see - http://wattsupwiththat.c...uling-and-investigation/
This is a very strong accusation, but he goes on to explain using Steve McIntyre's latest input here.
He claims that this is the first time he has used "liar" in over 7000 posts.
He obviously feels confident. Has he gone too far?
Edited by user 08 May 2012 07:38:07(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
Hopefully the university will pursue him for defamation. Maybe Stephen will defend the action?
Actually I find that site quite painful to read - it's full of cheap point scoring and misinformation (as I have demonstrated before). It's quite difficult to accept any of it because I alwaya have the nagging doubt in my head about what he is concealing or misrepresenting in order to score another point.
One of the links has a cheap shot at Jones for an arithmetic error and another about his Excel skills. Watts is hardly someone with an open mind, is he?
Actually they may welcome it from this source all the publicitiy surrounding climategate has substantially increased their student recruitment particularly in Environmental Science of which CRU is a unit.
Edited by user 08 May 2012 09:36:21(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
I don't care for allegations of lies, however the tree ring data was always rather weak to say the least.Yet using it is a fundamental part of generating the predicted runaway warming curve (which isn't happening, wonder why...)
I disagree with that for reasons well rehearsed on here, the tree ring data is quite robust but does need care in its interpretation as tree rings are sensitive to other factors besides temperature during the growing season. The current warming rate is close to that predicted by models. Paleoclimate data only tells us about past climate not future climate.
Good to see you distance yourself from that Four. As Tom has said I don't think you should dismiss what the tree rings show - yes, they have limitations. This is all just an excuse to dredge up the 'hockey stick' argument again, isn't it? I think we all understand why, i.e. because it is such a well-known slogan for climate change so if the sceptics/deniers can undermine it they think they can influence opinion about AGW. Do you play along with that?
As regards "runaway warming", is there a forecast chart that shows this occurring by the second decade of the 21st century? I'm sure we would all like to see the evidence for your claim Four. Certainly my understanding was that this not going to occur in the next 50 years at least.
This is all just an excuse to dredge up the 'hockey stick' argument again, isn't it?
ABCD Mind Control Central transmits instructions to talk about tree rings via WUWT to it's robotic PR Nodes when it's a slow news day. As usual it's just an ad-hom on climate scientists - in this case Briffa and his co workers. It is intended to prevent casual observers from concluding that the major aspects of the science are settled and to discredit scientists in general.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/#more-15956
In particular, for those unaware of the connection, he says this -
The Yamal chronology is relevant both because, since its introduction in 2000, it has been used in virtually all of the supposedly “independent” IPCC multiproxy studies (see an October 2009 discussion here) and because it is particularly influential in contributing an HS-shape to the studies that do not use bristlecones.
McIntyre posted regarding this, ....
And you believed him and repeated it verbatim. How very sceptical of you.
Edited by user 08 May 2012 21:17:44(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
According to..............S. McIntyre.
I think you may have overlooked the matter of one-sided scepticism. Or perhaps not.
Interesting read -
http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/20/copenhagen-consensus-2012/
The results of The Copenhagen Consensus 2012 have just been released. Bjørn Lomborg assembled a blue ribbon panel including Nobel Laureate economists. They ranked the top 30 most important humanitarian projects.
.........including climate change of course.
Interesting yes, but an AGW key issue? ...probably not.
I would have thought that dealing with AGW was the key issue. You don't think so, then?
Absolutely fine for a bunch of economists to give their opinion about which things they think political effort should be concentrated on. I don't think it's an AGW science issue though.
And I see you contributed a great deal of political commentary to the thread - "Right-wing-politics-and-scepticism-towards-AGW" - and politics isn't science either, but, that too, is greatly involved and indeed, seems to dominate the debate.
Yes I agree polarwind. The topic title is 'AGW - key issues' not 'AGW - key scientific issues' and politics and economics play a huge role in the debate.
Edited by user 21 May 2012 13:13:30(UTC) | Reason: Not specified
Well, it might be instructive to re-read the opening post in this thread by Llamedos:
This thread has been opened primarily as a reference section for the benefit of members who haven't posted in the climate forum before.
I'm fairly certain that the intention was to focus on the science but as with most threads in this Forum we have drifted somewhat.
It doesn't say anything about it just being the science. Why not start a AGW key science issues if you think it's needed?
No need - one was started and it is this one.
Feel free to keep taking the discussion off topic though....
Edited by user 21 May 2012 16:38:06(UTC) | Reason: Not specified