BBC Blog Network

User Profile

purpleDogzzz

Listed below are comments made by purpleDogzzz between Wednesday, 1st July 2009 and Tuesday, 24th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications 1:18pm on 24 Nov 2009 " And you still have no answer to why a sceptic couldnt gather their own data, do their own reconstruction and disprove it all. It would be easy enough. From what I can see the sceptics spend all their time picking over other peoples papers, data, methodologies, emails etc. Dont get me wrong, the implications of climate change are huge and so it's reasonable that a high standard of evidence should be expected. However, thats not whats going on here."

the leaked CRU data does cut to the very heart of this matter, in addition to the very good response of "57. At 12:30pm on 24 Nov 2009, Robinson", I would add ask you HOW, exactly are we supposed to come up with such a thing when the guardians of the raw data from the temperature stations with-hold it, (and we can see why) and refuse to divulge it, even under a FOI? Easy enough to produce an alternative reconstruction? What? Without any data available? The CRU had to admit that they had LOST much of the original data, (as confirmed by the shoddy data that the coders had to use) and so people were forced to use CRU's reconstruction that was constructed before that data was lost, but not to worry, becuase CRU are full of eminent and reputable scientists!!!!

People are then forced to use the CRU reconstruction, which has been shown to be unreliable by the comments of the people who were writing the code for it.

One only has to look at the efforts that HAVE been used to reconstruct what the CRU has come up with to see that others CANNOT use what information is available to them, and still show that the most recent 50 years are the warmest for 2000 years. But then, as Robbinson above noted, these papers do not get published, no matter how sound, or rigourous the science and the data, becuase we have seen a climatalogical mafia control the climate peer review process.

There, an answer for you.
'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications 12:59pm on 24 Nov 2009 "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and it would be nice if in this case the data is simply public, and the software to analyse it as well. In some branches of science, that is how it works, so why not in climate science?"

Because climate science's reputation, and the fate of trillions of dollars of policy and the lives of pretty much everyone on the planet, are to be massively effected by the theory that the CO2 that we produce is going to have a catastrophic effect on the global climate and the evidence for that rests on an assertion that the last 50 years really have been the warmest for over 2000 years, caused by said CO2. And that assertion is based on these temperature reconstructions from proxy data. (because the known historical data of Viking colonies on Greenland and wine growing in Yorkshire, is purely anecdotal, so should be rejected and because these known anomalies would require that the historic temperatures would have to be warmer than current temperatures.)

Well, now we know how utterly appalling that the CRU temperature reconstruction is, we have seen the code and the coder's own comments.

This is why these climate scientists dare not open up their code or practice to NORMAL scientific scrutiny, for it exposes them to the allegation of a fraud of catastrophic proportions.
'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications 12:45pm on 24 Nov 2009 The mainstream media, (notably the BBC) and the other "eminent" climate scientists are only responding to a “few emails” even if they now are beginning to admit that some of them really do seem to mean what they say they mean. (George Monbiot)

Although these emails are bad enough and clearly very damning to the reputations of the former "eminent" scientists, what all these people have refused to touch (with the proverbial barge pole) is the leaked code, the meta data and the comments in that data.

THAT is where the real damning evidence lays and that is what they are avoiding like the plague.

That data shows that the entire temperature reconstruction underpinning the CRU's contention that temperatures now are significantly warmer than in the past 2000 years, is extremely flaky at best, and completely unreliable and utterly worthless at worst.

The implication of that is that all the other “peer-reviewed” papers that use that temperature reconstruction are also now suspect and is further proof (alongside the admissions in the emails) that the peer-review process has utterly failed to stand up to the rigours of impartial science, and instead has been corrupted and this suggests, (or at least these people can not disprove that) it was used to validate papers based on conclusion, rather than the soundness of the actual scientific method or the soundness of the data used.

It has been a closed-shop of "agree-ers", pre-picked yes-men to validate papers on the nod. It is easy to find scientific consensus when you limit the crucial data to a small clique of co-conspirators who share the same goals.

It is like asking the Cardinals in the Vatican if Jesus really is the son of God, but more than this, that Jesus IS god himself, made manifest as man. But instead of them only believing that, they also manage to be the ONLY people who have historical records of Jesus, (which state no such thing), so they employ forgers to "reconstruct" from earlier texts a version of history that matches their beliefs, then releasing that reconstruction to the Jews and followers of Islam and then claiming that ALL Abrahamic religions believe the same thing and to deny this is heretic.

Hmmmmmmmmmm, where have we heard that sort of thing before?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from reviewing the data leak, is that the historical temperature reconstruction is not a sound, or reliable reconstruction. Vast parts of it are clearly invented out of thin air. This being the case, I can indeed understand why the CRU would seek to refuse any FOI request. This is not about preventing vexatious requests, but preventing people from getting to the "inconvenient truth" about the incomplete and unreliable state of previous temperature record-keeping, after all, how can one "prove" that the warming of the last 50 years was unusual, if one cannot disprove that there really was a Roman warm period as warm or even warmer than to day, or the medieval warm period, or little ice age, or that the temperatures at the end of the 1930s was as warm as the 1990s?

This is damning indeed, and for “eminent” scientists to attempt to cover this up, instead of actually deal with the issue of unreliable data, demonstrates that these people are wholly unfit to be the “guardians” of the AGW theory, or the scientific investigation thereof.

I wonder how many more times the hull of the good ship AGW can be holed below the water-line and yet still float?
El Presidente 1:10pm on 27 Oct 2009 Is it true that Vaclav Klaus is to offer the Czechs a referendum on this Lisbon Reform Treaty? If so, then the treaty is dead. He may not have the support of either of his houses of Parliament, but he does have enormous support from his fellow countrymen.

But then the "leaders" of the EU oligarchy do not care about such things as what the people want. That is why they are brazenly talking about which candidate gets to be dictator of the whole EU!
Blair for President? 3:05pm on 02 Oct 2009 Excuse me, but, erm...... Whatever happened to that thing that used to happen back when the people were allowed a say? Oh what was that thing called,... erm, it's that long ago I forget..... I remember it used to be considered a good thing and wars were fought and won to defend and protect it. Tens of millions died in the last century over defending and upholding it. It WAS pretty important back then, but what was it called?

Oh yes, DEMOCRACY!

Where the hell is there any tiny shred of democracy?

An Ireland of a few million people are getting a second say on a matter that could appoint Blair as what is in all accurate definitions of the word, a DEFACTO DICTATOR!

Have we gone quite MAD? How the hell have we come to THIS? The BBC announcing that Blair is likely to be APPOINTED as our President? And in a tone that is entirely nonchalant as if it is completely legal and normal. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT APPOINTING A PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF VOTE WHATSOEVER!!! Excuse me, but am I going clinically insane or WHAT? Am I the only one to be utterly and completely outraged with every single nerve and fibre of my entire being here or what?

Please Ireland, save yourselves from this slimy lying cheating excuse for a man.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE NO.
Swine flu vaccines get first UK trial 10:42am on 29 Sep 2009 @9. Panderix does not contain Thimirosol (a mercury derivative) but it does contain the Adjuvant squalene which has been linked to gulf-war syndrome and many other serious illnesses.

Why would anyone be so gullible as to believe that injecting toxic chemicals into a child will offer them any protection.
No-one can rewrite political history 12:59pm on 15 Sep 2009 Why is Nick in the least bit surprised by a labour lie? What else do they ever do but lie? Catch up Nick!
Government not defeated 08:21am on 08 Jul 2009 "Maybe the English voters will shock us all by suspending a decades old habit of voting in a 'tribal' fashion for the 'big three' and really shake things up a bit."
-------------------------------------------------------------

It seems more likely that the majority will simply not vote. Most people I speak to do not like (and in some cases violently hate) all the mainstream parties. They are generally very confused about who to vote for. The likely outcome will be either a vote for the tories to get Gordon out, or not voting at all.

The really tragic part? If everyone that felt like this voted for a pro UK party (instead of the pro EU mainstream) then that pro UK party would win by a landslide and our country could be returned to proper democratic accountability once more. There are far far far more uncommitted, fed up, frustrated voters, (likely non-voters) than there are supporters of the mainstream.

How are we going to break the conditioning that only tory or labour can win?
Government not defeated 10:23pm on 07 Jul 2009 As usual, the so-called labour "rebels" have not got one ball between them! They are, much like their leader, complete cowards!

Labour MP's had an opportunity to stand up for their core constituency and yet again, they kicked them in the guts!
Honesty: The new battleground 2:03pm on 01 Jul 2009 On a related note Nick, Could you post a time recently when Brown or Mandelson actually spoke the truth?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

purpleDogzzz