From: Albert T Cone on
Doug wrote:
> On 31 Mar, 15:52, Albert T Cone <a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 31 Mar, 14:23, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> The Commons Science and Technology Committee, also found that there
>>>> had been unreasonable withholding of climate data requested under the
>>>> Freedom of Information Act by scientists who are sceptical about
>>>> Anthropenic Global Warming (AGW) or Man Made Climate Change!
>>> The data was unavailable simply because the University was inundated
>>> with requests from climate change sceptics.
>> They were inundated for requests *because* they had not revealed their
>> data or methodology for scientific scrutiny as they should have done.
>>
> No because of the serious concerns raised because of the email hacking
> sceptics just prior to Copenhagen.

No. The data and methods should have been published with the results -
i.e. well before the Copenhagen. The fact that they weren't was
suspicious and resulted in demands for it to be published, which were
ignored, as were subsequent FOI requests, and it was *then* that the
emails were 'hacked', forcing the release of the source code and
starting the unravelling of the whole sorry mess.
From: Derek C on
On 1 Apr, 08:30, Peter Keller <m...(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:23:15 -0700, Doug wrote:
>
> >> I believe in reducing pollutants.  I do not believe in filling up the
> >> pockets of corrupt "CO2 sinks"  I also think that it is not justified
> >> to put CO2 at the top of our concerns when H2O has the biggest effect
> >> on climate.
>
> > We don't influence H2O do we?
>
> Exactly
>

Don't sweaty panting vegetarian cyclists emit more water vapour, CO2
and other noxious gases than most? They are always complaining that
cycle helmets make their heads too sweaty!

Derek C

From: Albert T Cone on
Doug wrote:
> On 31 Mar, 16:00, "Man at B&Q" <manatba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> The data was unavailable simply because the University was inundated
>>> with requests from climate change sceptics.
>> Wrong. It was unavauilable because they didn't want to make it
>> available. Being inundated with requests does not make the data
>> magically disappear.
>>
> But much more important of course there was no conspiracy and the data
> was correct so the ridiculous claims of the polluting sceptics were
> wrong.

Who says the data was correct? There hasn't been any analysis of the
science. All that has been said is that the content of hacked emails
doesn't prove that the parties involved were deliberately trying to skew
the data. It doesn't prove that they weren't trying to do that, nor
does it in any way validate the results.

In fact, given that the data is the result of an incomplete model, with
finite resolution, the one thing we can guarantee is that it *is* wrong,
although we have no idea by how much, or in what way...
From: Peter Keller on
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:00:04 -0700, Derek C wrote:


> Don't sweaty panting vegetarian cyclists emit more water vapour, CO2 and
> other noxious gases than most? They are always complaining that cycle
> helmets make their heads too sweaty!
>
> Derek C

I am carnivorous and do not wear a helmet.
Just what does this have to do with the price of oysters?

Peter
From: Brimstone on


"Peter Keller" <muzh(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hp1k8r$8pg$1(a)lust.ihug.co.nz...
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:00:04 -0700, Derek C wrote:
>
>
>> Don't sweaty panting vegetarian cyclists emit more water vapour, CO2 and
>> other noxious gases than most? They are always complaining that cycle
>> helmets make their heads too sweaty!
>>
>> Derek C
>
> I am carnivorous and do not wear a helmet.
> Just what does this have to do with the price of oysters?
>
That those shouting loudest should clam up.