Ringwraith

Well I'm chuffed to bits that you don't like my posting style Slimy, I may even post on here more often just because of that. And I've already offered opinion, questions and thoughts thanks.

House! Okay, linking to editorials aside, which aspect of this scandal are you most concerned with Ringwraith? In particular, which data do you think has been manipulated? How far do you think it goes? Do you think every climate study that shows the same result is fraudulent? It may help, if you could give a yes or a no to these: 1) Do you accept that average global temperatures are generally rising and have been for a couple of centuries? 2) Do you accept that atmospheric CO2 has risen in the last few centuries? 3) Do you accept the link between the presence of certain "greenhouse" gasses in the atmosphere and the temperature of the atmosphere? I'm genuinely interested, so I hope you'll answer. Dave I thought you'd like the money reference Dr_Dave, that's why I added it. In response to your questions I can only say that I'm unsure, and climategate hasn't really helped which is why I believe there should be an inquiry. Unlike others on here I don't profess to know it all, and will again say that I have added links to broaden the debate and perhaps include links others may not get to see. I can see how that rankles with some though, I mean, how dare I post links to information that goes against 'the consensus'?

Climategate: Follow the Money Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...7s_Most_Popular

The Climate Science Isn't Settled "What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree." —Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3917025400.html I suppose Lindzen doesn't know what he's talking about either does he?

Typical response of a conspiracy nut job. You're just asking questions right? Are you ashamed of standing by these statements? I'm not at all ashamed Slimy, what I have written is true. I'm certainly not as hypocritical as you are and shouldn't even bother replying to your juvenile rants, You strike me as some kind of rabbid ex-smoker who now crusades against smoking wherever you come accross it, yet for you it's the climate or cycling or some other nonsense you have fixated in your head.

Ah, Real Climate's links to 'computerised' versions of raw data. Thing is Vinnie if we can't apparently trust CRU, one of the world's top 3 Climate Research units with their data why should we trust any of the others? I've never said there was a conspiracy, I have merely added links to this thread to broaden the debate, and linked to newspaper articles and the like posing the question of corruption and conspiracy. I certainly now believe that there is enough evidence for an inquiry into CRU, and hopefully any such inquiry would also answer the question of potential for further corruption and or a wider conspiracy. Frankly your overreaction to me posting some of the links I have, and your general rudeness (along with the likes of Slimy) don't do you any favours either really.

Firstly, it wasn't their raw data, they retrieved the data from various weather stations around the world, used it and then adjusted it to take into account variability in collection methods. In effect, all they did was compile it ready for analysis, whether the original data remains in the posession of the weather stations in question I don't know. Maybe you should take it up with them? Secondly, the data was lost moving to the new building. This suggests that they held on to it for as long as circumstance allowed. By then, their research and methodology would already have passed sufficient scrutiny and been published, so really there was no reason to keep it whatsoever. Edited to add: I'm sorry, but you really are either being astonishingly thick or shamefully disingenuous. UEA got rid of their records of the raw data they used. Which part of this don't you understand? The raw data still exists, and is available (follow Dr_Dave's links) to anyone. No, the original raw data existed in the form of paper and magnetic tape records, CRU compiled and manipulated this and lost, dumped, burnt or did whatever with the original paper and magnetic tapes. Nobody can check any of CRU's compiled 'raw data' against the original papers or tapes because they no longer exist. I wont be taking it up with anyone, hopefully the inquiry will though.

Oh does it Dr_Dave? "Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. " No need for the time machine, an independent inquiry will do.

Vinnie says that he doubts that "the government or the public would have been too eager to devote god knows how much money towards preserving vast quantities of raw data" - (and remember, we're talking about the 80's here)! Yet in reality the UK government became a strong supporter of Climate Research in the mid-1980's. CRU was set up in 1972 but moved to a new building in the 1980's. At a time when governments around the world were becoming more and more interested in climate change, a time when the IPCC was being set up and the CRU was receiving new funding, new buildings and specific direction into the possibility of man made climate change, you would think that they might just hold onto their raw data, but oh no, they dumped it! As for manipulation of the data, if the raw data no longer exists to check against then how can anyone verify if any manipulation has been done correctly?

I have some questions for you Dr_Dave. 1. When was the CRU set up? 2. Why was it set up? 3. Who funded it? 4. When the data was requested under Freedom of Information requests, why did CRU scientists deny access under reasons of 'proprietary' - why didn't they just say that they dumped it in the 80's?

What's that Slimy? The raw data fell down a mine shaft and only the manipulated data is left!

Seeing as one of the main accusations of climategate is that the raw data has been manipulated I don't think much of this release at all Dr_Dave. Naturally I'll wait for the independent inquiry to assess all the data and allegations, as I would you hope you would also, but thanks for the link anyway.

The interviews contained in the following link are very interesting - http://www.infowars.com/lord-monckton-shut...arrest-al-gore/ If you only listen to one, make it the last one -

http://www.climatedepot.com/

It's spreading Slimy. Climategate New Zealand! http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...-shame-deepens/

Slimy! Another one just for you - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwa...he-end-for-agw/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/n...oling-cover-up/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...ord-Lawson.html

Oh, so you have read all the e-mails then, that's interesting, how long did it take you? If you don't believe data has been manipulated, perhaps you should contact Lord Lawson - http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article...hange-data.html

The data that's been on news Dr_Dave, surely you've heard about it? Unless you've read the entire 180mb and can tell us all it's nonsense then what more can you say? Is there enough evidence of potential fraud for an enquiry?

Oh, drat and curses, rumbled at last. That's right. In the late 1970's the current crop of established climate scientists deliberately went into what they knew to be a rubbish, underfunded field, specifically with a plan to convince the world that every one would die if they weren't bought shiny research labs. That's exactly how it happened. And somehow, no one cottoned on except very special people just like you. Grab your tiara Cinderella, it's time to become the princess you always were at heart. You're funny! But seriously you've no proof of no corruption, nor no conspiracy, so let's just hope there is a truly independent inquiry into this mess shall we?

Are you real? Vinnie said - I wanted to know if this comment applied to climate science and to get a handle on the levels of funding involved. Many people don't actually believe that 'climate change' is down to human activity, many people believe that it could lead to global taxation. Some people even believe that many of the world's leaders are having a meeting in Copenhagen next month to set that up, and introduce global governance to enforce the taxation. Some people believe that data has been manipulated to cement the man made global warming theory, you may have read about that in this thread and on the news recently. But thanks Dr_Dave, my mind is now at rest due to your fascinating contribution.

Scientists in academia are paid a more or less standard wage. Around £30,000 to £40,000 a year for a lectureship. They get no extra pay for research, nothing for publishing papers in journals, and even nothing for peer reviewing articles for journals. Is that clear enough for you? No, because climatology has always been of scientific interest for a number of decades, most obviously for meterological purposes. The question that comes to my mind is why can't you answer these questions for yourself? The information is all easily accessible, with everything from how science is funded, typical salaries for scientists, what funding pays for and the conditions on receiving funding, even details of individual grants, it's all there on the internet. Yet you ask on here, with more than a little insinuation bubbling under every word, incapable of answering anyone else's questions with anything close to resembling an original thought, analysis or even a hint that you've reflected on the topic you've commented on never mind actually engage in the discussion. Have you been sent here to test our faith in democracy, as some kind of latter day book of Job dealio? But they get new research labs built for them, new equipment, and the prestige of working in a highly respected and important field - right? As well as getting paid. So climate science was just as well funded and highly regarded prior to say the 1990's as it is now then Vinnie? And I don't mean just generally respected from a meteorological viewpoint.

Vinnie has made 1 fairly considered reply, but it has not answered the question of volume of funding. If you think that question is stupid and somehow not relevant then there's no helping you Slimy.

Still can't answer the question then? OK, let's take it nice and slowly for you then. Do scientists work for nothing? Was the field of climate science poorly regarded and poorly funded in decades past? How much money do they now receive, and how much have they received over recent years? You can also throw in the amount that the 'baddie' oil companies give the anti's as well if you like - just for extra fun!