Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[Hallo Alfie]

All the data has always been available, from the same sources where CRU got it from, the various meteorological organizations and so on.

And it says so in the report doesn't it? .
And Jones can reproduce his efforts can't he?

 

[Megalodon]

I see AAA still didn't come around to retract the lie about my statements.

It's par for the course, I know... But it's amusing to see the delayers avoiding the reports that exonerate Jones and the CRU of fraud.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I see AAA still didn't come around to retract the lie about my statements.

Sorry, have I missed something?

It's par for the course, I know... But it's amusing to see the delayers avoiding the reports that exonerate Jones and the CRU of fraud.

Which "delayers" exactly?

 

[Megalodon]

Sorry, have I missed something?

Yes, you've missed this exchange

Now please show us how von Storch lacked objectivity.

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

By Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter

You need to retract because I didn't mention van Storch.

So, let's see you miss it again...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yes, you've missed this exchange

So, let's see you miss it again...

No you are right, my mistake and my oversight - not intentional I assure you. I originally thought you were discussing von Storch's comments.

That said, I do not agree that the Spiegel article lacks objectivity quite in the manner you suggested. It certainly portrays things from 'a perspective' and is at least as objective (far more so in fact) as any article we would see in a warmerporn publication.

 

[Megalodon]

No you are right, my mistake and my oversight - not intentional I assure you. I originally thought you were discussing von Storch's comments.

Retraction accepted and appreciated.

That said, I do not agree that the Spiegel article lacks objectivity quite in the manner you suggested. It certainly portrays things from 'a perspective' and is at least as objective (far more so in fact) as any article we would see in a warmerporn publication.

Again, your bias is showing. Anything that disagrees with the lies you repeat is "warmerporn". The reports that exonerated the CRU didn't because they didn't use the word "exonerate". An article that portrays slanderers as heroes, and repeats the same debunked lies you favor is "objective".

Par for the course...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Again, your bias is showing. Anything that disagrees with the lies you repeat is "warmerporn". The reports that exonerated the CRU didn't because they didn't use the word "exonerate". An article that portrays slanderers as heroes, and repeats the same debunked lies you favor is "objective".

Par for the course...

Actually the reason is that they were not exonerated. As (I think you) was pointed out the word exonerate means to absolve from all responsibility. We could argue and I would concede that in terms of "fraud" they/he has been deemed innocent by their friends who wrote the paper, however there was a bit more to it than that. Jones and CRU have been held accountable for some things.

I guess if the argument had been soley around the fraud side, it should have been expressed more clearly by those here and in the OP. If you expect us to believe they have been "exonerated" from any and all responsibility and fault you will be hard pressed to convince anyone I suspect.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, van Storch only said that because he's Jones friend and partial to the CRU. He's only being honest in the parts where he appears to be condemning the CRU.

Von Storch has history of being an AGW 'believer' and being argumentative with his fellow believers. An exemplary example of 'group think'.

 

[BenBurch]

And it says so in the report doesn't it? .
And Jones can reproduce his efforts can't he?

If he cared to.

But if he takes my advice he won't do it to satisfy asshats who are Just Asking Questions. Those people can go collect the data for themselves and assemble, process and normalize it for themselves. Note some of this will have to be key-entered from handwritten logs.

To those people; "have fun storming the castle!"

 

[Halsu]

And it says so in the report doesn't it? .
And Jones can reproduce his efforts can't he?

Yep. Also, the work has already been reproduced by many other teams.

In the latter part of the 20th century CRU pioneered the methods for taking into account a wide range of local influences that can make instrumental records from different locations hard to compare. These methods were very labour intensive and were somewhat subjective. Much of this work was supported by the US Department of Energy and was published with the details of station corrections several times a year. Since the 1980s the Unit has done no more of this work and have concentrated on the merging and interpretation of data series corrected by others. There have been various analyses of similar publicly available data sets by different international groups. Although there are some differences in fine detail that reflect the differences in the analytical methods used, the results are very similar.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Its very hard to understand why Phil Jones cannot describe how he obtained his curve and why he cannot repeat that feat with the same data set.

Really, when all he would have to do is read his own publications, like this one:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281982%29110%3C0059%3AVISATP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

and this one:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr022/TR022A.pdf