Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html

When did The Mail ever publish anything that didn't support its own 'party
line'?


I'd also wonder why an 'international scientist' would choose The Mail to
'blow the whistle' in. It's hardly a paper of repute. Quite the reverse,
in fact.

--
*I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can't put it down.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ers-duped-mani
pulated-global-warming-data.html

When did The Mail ever publish anything that didn't support its own 'party
line'?

What has this to do with anything?

Because they publish stories their readers want to read - regardless of
truth or accuracy. Surely you don't need examples?

I'd also wonder why an 'international scientist' would choose The Mail
to 'blow the whistle' in. It's hardly a paper of repute. Quite the
reverse, in fact.

He's a Yank. He'd hardly be in a position to know how the Mail is or is
not viewed in this country. You must be harry AICMFP.

He's not even a whistle blower. Goes to the press after he has left the
organisation. So who knows what his true motives are?

And it's not just the Mail, as I posted earlier.

For every one of those who deny climate change you'll find hundreds of
other experts who support the view.

And, of course, it has F-all to do with DIY.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...leaders-duped-
manipulated-global-warming-data.html



I can see any titties in that article!

Doesn't seem it should be in the Mail!...


When did The Mail ever publish anything that didn't support its own 'party
line'?


I'd also wonder why an 'international scientist' would choose The Mail to
'blow the whistle' in. It's hardly a paper of repute. Quite the reverse,
in fact.


--
Tony Sayer

On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html


Quite an important story. I'd like to read an impartial account, but I
can't find the item on the BBC News site. Funny that.

Bill

On 06/02/17 17:44, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



Quite an important story. I'd like to read an impartial account, but I
can't find the item on the BBC News site. Funny that.

Well impartial and BBC ain't two words that belong together.

Its breaking all over the place, and is either being bigged up or
totally ignored.




Bill


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On Monday, 6 February 2017 10:12:16 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html

--
--

Colin Bignell

So you DO read the DM after all!

On 06-Feb-17 10:24 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ers-duped-mani

pulated-global-warming-data.html

Yes, and it's not just in the Mail. Big article in the Times about it
today.

Seems they not only used data "selectively", but also carefully timed
the publication of their paper to influence the Paris conference.

Not the first time that climate scientists have been accused of being
selective in their use of data. The Russian Institute of Economic
Analysis claims that the IPCC report before last ignored about 75% of
the readings supplied by Russian scientists. Oddly enough, they used
only those, mostly from urban areas, that showed a increase in
temperature and ignored the rural area readings that showed no increases.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 06/02/17 18:23, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Feb-17 10:24 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ers-duped-mani


pulated-global-warming-data.html

Yes, and it's not just in the Mail. Big article in the Times about it
today.

Seems they not only used data "selectively", but also carefully timed
the publication of their paper to influence the Paris conference.

Not the first time that climate scientists have been accused of being
selective in their use of data. The Russian Institute of Economic
Analysis claims that the IPCC report before last ignored about 75% of
the readings supplied by Russian scientists. Oddly enough, they used
only those, mostly from urban areas, that showed a increase in
temperature and ignored the rural area readings that showed no increases.

man made climate change is a reality ...for people who live in cities.

It doesn't affect anywhere else though..

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



well harry won't understand it if he reads it.

However it just restates the fact that climate scientists have been
fiddling the data.

Now they have lost the raw data so no one can actually check if it is
correct.

You can't trust a climate scientist.

On 06/02/2017 18:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

man made climate change is a reality ...for people who live in cities.

It doesn't affect anywhere else though..


I'm *just about* convinced that man made climate change is real, but
not the the ridiculous "Venus" scenarios.

Still a few tens of CMs in sea level rise would no doubt upset a few
people before the next ice age kicks in

On 06/02/17 21:28, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html


well harry won't understand it if he reads it.

However it just restates the fact that climate scientists have been
fiddling the data.

Now they have lost the raw data so no one can actually check if it is
correct.

While you are right Den, I'm afraid Rule 1 applies. Because it's the
Mail, it's automatically wrong bull**** lies twaddle a put up job.
That's what Our Dave says so it must be true (that, basically, is Rule
1).

No, its a lot simpler than that. What the SWP and the SJWs and the
Guardian and the BBC say is trusted, Any story that contradicts this
narrative is therefore lies rubbish and part of a hard right conspiracy
to tell lies to the poor working classes who have already been deluded
into voting brexit.


I had exactly the same revelation when talking to some creationist
neighbours. Everyrything in the bible was true, literally, and that was
the only truth in the world, and if that meant that God or Satan had
planted dinosaur bones to confuse us, well so be it.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 06/02/17 23:47, Lee wrote:
On 06/02/2017 18:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

man made climate change is a reality ...for people who live in cities.

It doesn't affect anywhere else though..


I'm *just about* convinced that man made climate change is real, but
not the the ridiculous "Venus" scenarios.

Still a few tens of CMs in sea level rise would no doubt upset a few
people before the next ice age kicks in

sea level change is as it has been since the last ice age really, rising
a few mm a decade.

Man made climate change exists, but only at temperature stations that
have had cities built round them, and whose data has then been used to
'adjust' rural stations upwards.

The earth is temperature controlled by a circulation of water vapour
that carries heat way up beyond most of the CO2 and towards the poles,
where it radiates to space. Its a very clever thermostat, but its got a
lot of hysteresis in it and there is a lot of turbulence in the flows,
so its difficult to really say what the 'average temperature' is, let
alone should be.


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 06-Feb-17 6:18 PM, harry wrote:
On Monday, 6 February 2017 10:12:16 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html

--
--

Colin Bignell

So you DO read the DM after all!

Nope. I gave up getting my news fro newspapers years ago. Somebody
linked to it in another group.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 06-Feb-17 10:35 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:12:11 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html


Hear, hear! (or perhaps read, read!)

It's what TNP has being saying for ages, and even Pamela recently!

It does surprise me that NOAA should do anything so stupid, bearing in
mind the controversies that surround climate change. You'd have
thought they would have had more sense. 'Truth will out' as they say.

Well NASA managed to get away with 'correcting' their temperature
records so that the 1930s were no longer the hottest decade in the 20th
century.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 07/02/2017 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

The earth is temperature controlled by a circulation of water vapour
that carries heat way up beyond most of the CO2 and towards the poles,
where it radiates to space. Its a very clever thermostat, but its got a
lot of hysteresis in it and there is a lot of turbulence in the flows,
so its difficult to really say what the 'average temperature' is, let
alone should be.



Exactly, which is why the "doomsday" prediction of the loony Greens are
so ridiculous.

Still think "we" may tip the cycle, perhaps earlier/stronger than it
would have been. But we'll differ on that

On 07/02/17 12:40, Lee wrote:
On 07/02/2017 08:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

The earth is temperature controlled by a circulation of water vapour
that carries heat way up beyond most of the CO2 and towards the poles,
where it radiates to space. Its a very clever thermostat, but its got a
lot of hysteresis in it and there is a lot of turbulence in the flows,
so its difficult to really say what the 'average temperature' is, let
alone should be.



Exactly, which is why the "doomsday" prediction of the loony Greens are
so ridiculous.

Still think "we" may tip the cycle, perhaps earlier/stronger than it
would have been. But we'll differ on that

Into the next ice age? I doubt it but that's where we are heading.

The geological record shows that interglacials such as we are enjoying
are of short duration and don't get any hotter than the holocene
optimum, which was a degree or so warmer than today.

--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On Monday, 6 February 2017 20:36:10 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



well harry won't understand it if he reads it.

However it just restates the fact that climate scientists have been
fiddling the data.

Where do you get that idea. ?
It's like saying a TV engineer broadcast lies.


Now they have lost the raw data so no one can actually check if it is
correct.

You can't trust a climate scientist.

Are yuo sure it's not those reporters and administrators rather than scientists.

On 06/02/17 17:44, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



Quite an important story. I'd like to read an impartial account, but I
can't find the item on the BBC News site. Funny that.

Bill

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/c...-climate-data/

is possibly the best so far


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Tuesday, 7 February 2017 13:31:28 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/17 17:44, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



Quite an important story. I'd like to read an impartial account, but I
can't find the item on the BBC News site. Funny that.

Bill

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/c...-climate-data/

is possibly the best so far


Have you watched climate change by numbers where it analised it statistically.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jsdrk

The only bit they could prove was that if you increase a football teams wages by 10% the likely outcome is that they will gain 1 or 2 points more in a season.
Which must explain why such players earn so much, I think. :-{}

On 07/02/2017 13:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 6 February 2017 20:36:10 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



well harry won't understand it if he reads it.

However it just restates the fact that climate scientists have been
fiddling the data.

Where do you get that idea. ?
It's like saying a TV engineer broadcast lies.

Are you going to argue about science now?
Shouldn't you be advising on the photography thread?
You do claim to be the expert.



Now they have lost the raw data so no one can actually check if it is
correct.

You can't trust a climate scientist.

Are yuo sure it's not those reporters and administrators rather than scientists.


How would the reporters and administrators lose the data?

On 2/7/2017 1:31 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/02/17 17:44, Bill Wright wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html




Quite an important story. I'd like to read an impartial account, but I
can't find the item on the BBC News site. Funny that.

Bill

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/c...-climate-data/

is possibly the best so far


Excellent link. Gets quite complicated and a lot of information there,
but it all *sounds* right. Shows how the net ought to be used. With
cloud storage the price that it is these days, what excuse is there
*ever* for not archiving data properly, and making it available to
anyone who asks.

On Tuesday, 7 February 2017 17:19:57 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/02/2017 13:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 6 February 2017 20:36:10 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



well harry won't understand it if he reads it.

However it just restates the fact that climate scientists have been
fiddling the data.

Where do you get that idea. ?
It's like saying a TV engineer broadcast lies.

Are you going to argue about science now?

Why not I have a OND in it.

Shouldn't you be advising on the photography thread?
You do claim to be the expert.

I donl;t need to be an expert to know more than you do.


Now they have lost the raw data so no one can actually check if it is
correct.

You can't trust a climate scientist.

Are yuo sure it's not those reporters and administrators rather than scientists.


How would the reporters and administrators lose the data?

No idea all I was saying is that a true scientist wouldn't lose the data.
If you think science corespondants in the mail are true scientists that's your problem.

On 08/02/2017 11:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2017 17:19:57 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/02/2017 13:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 6 February 2017 20:36:10 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



well harry won't understand it if he reads it.

However it just restates the fact that climate scientists have been
fiddling the data.

Where do you get that idea. ?
It's like saying a TV engineer broadcast lies.

Are you going to argue about science now?

Why not I have a OND in it.

Shouldn't you be advising on the photography thread?
You do claim to be the expert.

I donl;t need to be an expert to know more than you do.

That's your problem, you think you know stuff that you don't.




Now they have lost the raw data so no one can actually check if it is
correct.

You can't trust a climate scientist.

Are yuo sure it's not those reporters and administrators rather than scientists.


How would the reporters and administrators lose the data?

No idea all I was saying is that a true scientist wouldn't lose the data.
If you think science corespondants in the mail are true scientists that's your problem.



Why do you think the people at the mail lost the data?
If you read the articles then you may get a clue as too who lost the
data, but maybe you won't.

On Wednesday, 8 February 2017 12:38:47 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/02/2017 11:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2017 17:19:57 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/02/2017 13:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 6 February 2017 20:36:10 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/02/2017 10:12, Nightjar wrote:

Harry seems to have missed telling us about this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html



well harry won't understand it if he reads it.

However it just restates the fact that climate scientists have been
fiddling the data.

Where do you get that idea. ?
It's like saying a TV engineer broadcast lies.

Are you going to argue about science now?

Why not I have a OND in it.

Shouldn't you be advising on the photography thread?
You do claim to be the expert.

I donl;t need to be an expert to know more than you do.

That's your problem, you think you know stuff that you don't.

No I know I don't know stuff, but there's other stuff I do know.

And I can be pretty sure a scientist wouldn't apply to the daily mail[1] for a science job, any more than he would go to Tescos for a science job.

[1] excluding job adverts on notice boards etc.



How would the reporters and administrators lose the data?

No idea all I was saying is that a true scientist wouldn't lose the data.
If you think science corespondants in the mail are true scientists that's your problem.



Why do you think the people at the mail lost the data?

Are yuo saying it was delibrate ?

If you read the articles then you may get a clue as too who lost the
data, but maybe you won't.

Then I'd be accused of being a daily mail reader like you are ;-P