Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

A.A.Alfie said:
No doubt if he is producing "lies", he has been taken to court for slander etc. Can you show me where and when this has occured please?

Oh whoops, they probably couldn't take him to task because that would mean producing their dodgy data.

Anyway, see what you can come up with.
Click to expand...

Lying about science is not something you can sue someone for.

Have you ever read the IPCC report? Do you understand the physics behind AGW?
 
RandFan said:
If I had conspired to commit a crime? Damn straight.

It sure looks like these guys were conspiring to destroy data to thwart an FOI. That's a crime.

ETA: I'm not saying they did conspire to commit a crime. I'm only saying that it looks that way. If this wasn't a crime it sure as hell gas the appearance of one. It was sure damn stupid.

Yes, I've said damn stupid things in emails. Conceded.

I still support Cap and Trade.
Click to expand...

The files that were stolen were clearly the ones set aside for the FOI people, including the 'incriminating' ones. Bitching about things isn't a crime.
 
a_unique_person said:
I don't recall the scientific process incorporating court proceedings as a part of it.
Click to expand...

You said someone was I liar. I suggested that if that were the case there would be evidence against him, presumably via a court case for slander.
If you are going to assert something like that, you probably should back it up.
 
a_unique_person said:
The files that were stolen were clearly the ones set aside for the FOI people, including the 'incriminating' ones. Bitching about things isn't a crime.
Click to expand...

"Stolen".
Clearly meant for FOI - that's a new one at any rate, did you make it up?

Are you attempting to deflect responsibility or mitigate the contents of the emails?
Matters not porobably, as it seems more and more likely that the emails were the result of an insider. Thus making the word stolen completely inaccurate given the whistleblower laws.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
You said someone was I liar. I suggested that if that were the case there would be evidence against him, presumably via a court case for slander.
If you are going to assert something like that, you probably should back it up.
Click to expand...

"The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities."

The CRU doesn't make a 'profit'. It's a non profit entity. The claim is just crazy. Jones gets a salary. He doesn't get share options, or a commission.
 
a_unique_person said:
"The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities."

The CRU doesn't make a 'profit'. It's a non profit entity. The claim is just crazy. Jones gets a salary. He doesn't get share options, or a commission.
Click to expand...

Where is the lie exactly? This make no sense ^^^^
 
a_unique_person said:
They didn't make a profit. As for the science, I haven't seen you refer to any science at all.
Click to expand...

But who said it? What is the lie and who said it? You called the man a liar, so prove it.

Science thread is thataway >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I haven't brought up science, this is not a science forum.

Seems you are avoiding answering the questions.
 
The “Documents” folder in the enormous data-file released by the whistleblower contains many segments of computer program code used by Jones and the Team in contriving the Climate Research Unit’s global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the Team were suspect, were fabricated, and were not fit for their purpose.
Click to expand...

The Australian BOM has set out to rectify the problems with it's data by implementing a quality reference set for the purposes of organisations such as the CRU.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml

The Australian Reference Climate Station (RCS) network has been established for high quality, long-term climate monitoring, particularly with regard to climate change analysis. The establishment of the network followed a request by the World Meteorological Organization to all of its member nations in 1990.
Click on the link for the official definition of an RCS.


Around 100 RCSs have been selected from the existing Australian observation network. Preference was given to stations with
  • high quality and long climate records,
  • a location in an area away from large urban centres, and
  • a reasonable likelihood of continued, long-term operation.
Click to expand...
 
tyr_13 said:
But it would have been if the case had been lost. The question is why?
Click to expand...


We don’t know that.

In any they made agreements when they acquired the data and wanted to live up to those agreements. This may be so they would continue to have access to the data (if you were selling data would you give a copy to people who turned around and handed it out for free?) or it may have simply been principle.
 
a_unique_person said:
The files that were stolen were clearly the ones set aside for the FOI people, including the 'incriminating' ones.
Click to expand...
How is it clear? Blindly asserting something doesn't make it true.

Bitching about things isn't a crime.
Click to expand...
How is discusing the delition of data in the face of an FOI "bitching".

Hey, it might be but please don't just assert things. I'm not here pushing an agenda. I want to understand. If your position is correct and I'm willing to accept that it very well might be then you could explain why what you are stating is correct.
 
lomiller said:
We don’t know that.

In any they made agreements when they acquired the data and wanted to live up to those agreements. This may be so they would continue to have access to the data (if you were selling data would you give a copy to people who turned around and handed it out for free?) or it may have simply been principle.
Click to expand...
An FOI is court ordered. It doesn't matter what your reasons are. You can't destroy the data. If you do it's a crime.
 
RandFan said:
An FOI is court ordered. It doesn't matter what your reasons are. You can't destroy the data. If you do it's a crime.
Click to expand...

There was no court order, the FOI request was rejected, nor was any data destroyed. I'm not familier with UK laws but here FOI requests are not court orders, but rather are handled by a records officer. (civil servants who review and process the requests.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom