What would a climate scientist do with data they don’t like?
Delete it.
Muir Russel report caught red handed deleting evidence of climate scientists being caught red handed manipulating the game.
They sure look like a bunch of liars and scam artists to me. Busted again.
the Air Vent 
Gotta fix your link, dude.
Well, with all the people saying there was nothing “sinister” about the climategate emails shouldn’t we just take this as S.O.P. across all branches of science?
It’s not unique to “Climate Science,” is it?
/sarc_off
Unfortunately I’m on the road and can’t fix it. Use the blog link on the right
Well done
For info – and we will send out more details we are having a Press event Tuesday 30 nov 12 noon about WINTER
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6666&linkbox=true&position=9
Here is the “Jeff” link:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/11/24/holland-what-was-redacted.html
3 Piers Corbyn – Please can you explain who you are asking us to sponsor and why? If the forecast exists what is the sponsorship for as the work has been done? If the forecast is of public value in terms of safety etc don’t you feel there is some moral obligation to release it anyway? How much is the sponsorship target, is WeatherAction a charity, and what will the sponsorship be spent on? How does this relate to the BishopHill story? Thanks
Further cheating here from ‘the hockey team’ this time.
Ray Bradley gets the Al Gore prize for the most creative graph of the year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/24/dr-ray-bradleys-amazing-photo/#more-28243
Amazing. And, still, we here from the likes of the believers that Wegman is a guilty plagiarist and Phil Jones was exonerated. I really don’t understand how people can so obviously lie to even themselves.
Mark
Re: jazznick (Nov 24 15:55),
And so it goes, round and round.
The graph in the background of that head shot is from a book that Bradley edited.
And the caption that you can’t see in the head shot said:
“Short Description: Greenhouse trace gas changes over the last four climatic cycles (Vostok ice core, Petit et al., 1999). The CO2 and CH4 records are plotted together with the Vostok ice isotopic record (dD). The present-day antarctic CO2 (365ppmv) and CH4 (1600 ppbv) are also indicated”
Which is just what the graph shows.
Nick, Nick, Nick The present day CO2 was NOT indicated it was spliced and leaves the viewer of the graph that ALL the data is from Vostok. Your defense of the indefensible shows you lack independent thought, judgement, and are certainly stiuck in a group think.
Nick, any thoughts on the original (“Holland – what was redacted”) subject? More specifically, and to paraphrase Pearce, can you figure out how to defend and/or explain this away as a “cockup rather than conspiracy”? I know you’ll try! 🙂
Re: TerryMN (Nov 24 21:32),
No, Terry, some things are just too arcane for me. Especially when you have to follow a chain of links to find out what the bust is even supposed to be about.
You’re a smart guy with an eye for detail, Nick – I’d be a little shocked if you didn’t know exactly what it’s about. No biggie though, we can just leave it at “No.” Cheers
Oh puhleeze Nick. As someone noted at WUWT, Ben Santer submitted a “hockey stick” graph during the Congressional hearings which made it appear global surface temperatures shot straight up since the mid 70’s and never slowed down. Then he scaled CO2 to make it appear to be in lock step with temperatures.
Then there was the Rahmstorf incident discussed at Lucia’s. Examples like these are numerous.
It’s all about perception, and playing graph games is all these alarmist “scientists” have left.
Re: slimething (Nov 24 22:54)
There’s actually no reasonable doubt that CO2 had risen to 365 ppmv at the time of the graph. The only nit to pick is whether this was a Vostok ice core measurement. It wasn’t, and the caption makes that clear.
o.. Thanks… Nice post..
Yep, it’s arcane, alright, and crookeder than a warped hockey stick.
I love the irony of your response, Nick, right after MarkT’s comment at 5:29.
It’s getting to the point that the alarmists are being exposed as lying to themselves. Remove yourself from this group, Nick; you’ve enough credibility to do it.
=======================
17 Kim FWIW – the first thing that went through my mind on seeing that pic at WUWT is “what’s the context? what’s not in shot?”. Seriously, credibility cuts both ways.
17 Kim – sorry, actually I just checked the link to Bradley’s home page and maybe he was trying to make a point. The “Today” text and arrow look like they might have been photo shopped on afterwards but I don’t know. I haven’t seen the ref. in the book but from the WUWT comment Nick linked in comment 9 there is a link to a ppt slide which doesn’t have the “Today” annotation, nor does it have any key or colour scheme differentiating the two parts of the record – which was Anthony’s objection.
Re: curious (Nov 25 11:24),
No, the slide is marked “Today”, though in a different style (on the axis).
Yes, on checking again (!) agreed, but Anthony’s points about the key and colour differentiation stand. Not one I’m that bothered about and I should have kept out of it. Apologies to you and Kim.
Yeah, it is standard operating procedure. There’s lots of evidence that “external pressures” have a *huge* corrupting influence on science. If you think this situation is unique to climate science, think again.
Re ‘Curious’ – number 5.
AND? What are your mortgage payments for since your house has already been built?
We cannot live on blog-words and are not a charity. Or maybe I should walk in a shop and say: “Why should I pay for that loaf of bread because it has already been made?”
Of course I want to tell the world our forecasts but if we do no-one pays. Last year we did for free tell the BBC in October and public, as far as we could, a lot of key stuff about winter 09/10 including that road salt would run out.
The BBC broke its promise to publicise it, we were ignored and people died on un-salted roads as a consequence of the Met Offices warmist forecasts. THEN the BBC (Andrew Neil) reported ‘Oh yes the cold winter was warned about for Europe in general terms by an American’ – as if we never existed – whereas our forecast was longer ahead, much much more detailed and more accurate.
So what do we hope to achieve by sponsorship?
1. Money to buy bread to last the winter.
2. Help sponsors as advertisers.
3. Attract serious interest which might encourage businesses and individuals to BUY the much more detailed full forecasts.
4. Eventually persuade BBC, Govt and others to take our long-range forecasts and ACT ON THEM in order to reduce hardship and save lives. That sounds a no-brainer but they have a mental hurdle here; they have to forego their Global warming religion and admit the bubble of false carbon value they are struggling to create is going POP. It’s the Sun wot does it!
Thanks,
Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist, ARCS FRAS FRMetS
MD WeatherAction
Tell me what you think about the
U.S. Winter 2010-11 Thanks! Matthew Holliday CEO of FirstHandWeather.com br
Jeff Id:
Nothing but insinuations. Bishop Hill keeps harping and harping on the so-called December 2005 ‘deadline’ for scientific papers to be accepted in journals before they can be mentioned by the IPCC. But the hard deadline isn’t December 2005, but late February 2006:
(emphasis mine)
December 2005 is an “in practice” deadline, not a hard deadline. Yet Bishop Hill keeps harping on it, and you just mindlessly propagate it.
So, Jeff Id, will you now admit that you’re an idiot?
— frank
REPLY: Frank, I wouldn’t start with calling names if you wish to have a discussion here. While my wife and everyone here can tell you that I can be wrong, I’m quite certain from your childish tone and blog link which is full of leftist propaganda in the comments that you are unqualified to judge my intellect. You are free to give your opinions here but not free to abuse.
Heh, curious; I was on about ‘arcane’ in connection with Nick’s post #12 on 11/24 @ 9:39 PM, when he was talking about the Holland affair, which in its arcaninity exemplifies the crookedness involved. Nick looks the other way.
Frank @ #25. The beauty of ClimateGate is that it allows regular scientists to understand how they were deceived by the alarmists’ failure to follow the scientific method and the tangled chain of corruption which followed. The same goes for the Holland incident within the ClimateGate affair. These are both exemplary pedagogic devices. Employ them to good use.
====================================
Kim:
Well, the beauty of your 33-word insinuation is that it manages to be grammatically correct without mentioning a single concrete fact or actually addressing anything I wrote.
But perhaps if you actually start addressing the crucial fact I’m pointing out — that the December 2005 “deadline” Bishop Hill keeps harping on was merely an “in practice” deadline, not a hard deadline — then it’ll destroy the beauty of your fact-free proclamations, won’t it?
— frank
Heh, heh, nor all your words nor protestations can change what happened and is happening.
=================================
Odd, isn’t it, that they would go to such lengths to get around an ‘in practice’ deadline? Why would they seek to hide the evidence of such lengths if it was not a ‘hard deadline’?
Do you see what happens when independent thinkers look at this whole mess, as opposed to those who have already made up their minds about it? I don’t believe you can see how this whole ClimateGate is viewed by scientists who’ve not allowed politics to so pollute their work. This is a slow process, still gathering steam, because too many scientists still believe the whitewashes.
But unless the alarmists get incredibly lucky, and it warms sooner rather than later, then this process of understanding how the risk of CO2 got exaggerated will continue until it is well enough understood to secure the future health of science.
============================
Kim:
Wrong again. What’s really happening is that some people — Andrew Montford and David Holland — went to great lengths to paint the omission as a deliberate act of deception.
What exactly is the “evidence that suggests strongly that the full unedited version was supplied to Osborn and Briffa” before or during the Muir Russell inquiry? Can you quote it?
It doesn’t actually exist, does it?
Well, what I see is a “slow process” that’s so “slow” that it’s totally invisible. But perhaps you can get a few of your friends here to pose as “I’m a Nobel-prize winning scientist and I’m shocked, shocked!” types on this thread. It’ll be fun to watch.
— frank
Well actually I thought the article was a bit ‘arcane’ and assumed that readers knew what he was talking about. It could have done with a summary paragraph describing the proof and perhaps in introductory paragraph describing what was being asserted. The article is poorly written and I came away with the impression that these guys had diligently ensured that a relevant paper was published in time to be reference, when obviously what was intended was that this should be a an example of criminal behavior in the Global Anthropomorphic Global Warming Hoax (GAGWH). But then I don’t believe in the GAGWH, so I might be biased.
Mike,
It actually was an ongoing problem to get the paper into the IPCC as I understand it. The boys wanted the political conclusions as was covered at CA well before climategate so CA readers might not be surprised to see the problem again glossed over by the review. IF it were such an open-shut deal as Frank believes, they certainly could have just addressed it by saying it wasn’t outside of the guidelines or whatever BS they wanted. Instead, the identified problem was just deleted. Perhaps it was by accident or perhaps it was by intent but climategate taught us that there is plenty of intent.
Jeff Id:
Oh, the irony. So after you go around calling the CRU “a bunch of liars and scam artists” — based on nothing but innuendo — you have the temerity to lecture me on “calling names”? Maybe you’re only bringing up this “calling names” talking point because you suddenly realize that you can’t defend the substance of your original blog post?
The following aren’t opinions. They’re not leftist propaganda. They’re hard facts which are easily shown.
Fact #1: Andrew Montford throws out insinuations of deliberate wrongdoing by CRU without the slightest proof.
Fact #2: Jeff Id mindlessly propagates Montford’s insinuations of deliberate wrongding, without the slighest bit of skepticism.
Fact #3: Based on Montford’s baseless innuendo, Jeff Id calls the CRU “look like a bunch of liars and scam artists”.
Fact #4: When it’s pointed out that Jeff Id is propagating baseless accusations, he starts complaining about “name calling” and “abuse” and “childish tone”.
Which brings me to…
Fact #5: Jeff Id suddenly realizes that the ‘evidence’ of deliberate wrongdoing by CRU s somewhere around zilch. Uh-oh.
Fact #6: Jeff Id tries to wiggle out of this situation by throwing out some innuendo of his own.
* * *
Thing is, Jeff, if you want an intelligent discussion, you need to exercise some intelligence yourself. If you don’t want to be called an idiot, then stop acting like one.
* * *
Here’s a bit of advice from me, Jeff, and I mean it with the best of intentions:
#1: Take some time to verify the claims behind whatever hyperlinks you’re propagating.
#2: If you have no evidence for your claims, admit you have no evidence for your claims.
#3: If you start out by calling people “a bunch of liars and scam artists”, don’t be surprised if people don’t respond to you in the civil fashion that you demand.
Of course, you’re perfectly free not to follow this advice, but in that case I’m also free to mock you in every way I can. Consider yourself warned.
— frank
Frank,
As I said, no namecalling. I don’t have the patients today.
Frank,
You should be able to express your point quite clearly without name calling. How old are you?
Frank, I don’t agree with your convenient interpretation of ‘guidelines’. How is that?!
If you want to fall for the bull, nobody is stopping you. Feel free, but don’t expect me to follow you over that cliff.
“Take some time to verify the claims behind whatever hyperlinks you’re propagating.”
I have
“If you start out by calling people “a bunch of liars and scam artists”, don’t be surprised if people don’t respond to you in the civil fashion that you demand.”
Then they should stop actually being liars and scam artists. What adjective would you suggest for those who lie or scam?
BTW: Thanks for the warning big dog.
23 Piers ” 1. Money to buy bread to last the winter. ” …
Sorry Piers – I did n’t realise things were so tight!
If you are serious about putting your forecasts up for open critical review, I’d suggest the BBC are not the best people to approach. Blogland is much more open and posters are met with informed, interested and constructive criticism. Why not approach Jeff or Anthony to run a test? You could request to lodge in confidence a copy of your forecast for the winter and list key metrics on a week by week basis. Then notify the key metrics (but not your forecast values) to the blog readership and ask them to monitor them over the coming week. At the end of each week Jeff or Anthony could release your forecast values and an open comparison could be made for the elapsed period. In this way, over the course of a winter, you could demonstrate a steadily increasing track record of success and prove your product. I think an open and critically reviewed trial such as this would publicise your work to a world wide audience and help you find willing and convinced customers for your forecasts.
Similar to buying a house or a loaf bread – people buy because they are known visible products which they can verify prior to purchase. An unknown baker does not knock on doors asking people to pay for a loaf which they haven’t a need for nor ordered in advance.