Text 20957, 113 rader
Skriven 2015-02-01 18:36:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av DALE SHIPP
Ärende: Re: Assumptive questions
================================
On 01-31-15, DALE SHIPP said to TIM RICHARDSON:

-=> On 01-30-15  08:46,  Tim Richardson <=-
-=> spoke to Bill Mcgarrity about Re: Assumptive questions <=-


DS>I have had about as much of this as I can take.  One response, and one
DS>response only.


TR> But....so far neither you nor anyone else in here has just given some
TR> real, informative answers to a couple of simple questions.



DS>You are not asking "simple questions".  You are making accusatory
DS>assertions without any proof that the accusations have any basis in real
DS>fact.


Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the
open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent
parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can
replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations.


Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to
hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.



"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts.
One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all
emails at the end of the process,"writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a
newly released email.



"Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants
we get - and has to be well hidden,"� Jones writes in another newly released
email.


"I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past
and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."


The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying
information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available
according to freedom of information principles. "Mike, can you delete any
emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?" Jones wrote to Penn State University
scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. "Keith will do
likewise."


"We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate
Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!"


The new emails also reveal the scientists' attempts to politicize the debate
and advance predetermined outcomes.


"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's
included and what is left out"� of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck,
coordinating lead author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment.



TR> If `global warming' is so real....why try to hide e-mails on the
TR> subject from the very taxpayers who are paying for the research to be
TR> done?


DS>How, when, where and by whom did this happen?


TR> If its all so genuine....why speak of hiding material on it from
TR> FOIA's?


DS>How, when, where and by whom did this happen?


TR> Why the need to delete e-mail conversations that speak of altering
TR> data?


DS>How, when, where and by whom did this happen?


TR> Why try to conceal data that contradicts your claims by `averaging'
TR> data over long periods so as to hide `cooling' periods (oh yes...thats
TR> quite openly discussed in the e-mails)?


DS>How, when, where and by whom did this happen?


TR> If its all so real....why even bother to `doctor' material and
TR> presentations so as to forestall any `skepticism'? What is it they are
TR> not wanting anyone to know?


DS>How, when, where and by whom did this happen?



---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)