Rainman,
The whole purpose of their work is to make it completely reproducible and open to the public\layman. The math can be checked out by anyone. -Rainman
What the fuck do you even think the scientific method is? To say that we can't get a grip on how scientists come to their conclusions is the dumbest thing I've ever fucking heard. Maybe you and the handful of other people can't, but I am smarter than that. All it takes is actually trying to lazy fucks.
Do you know what the fuck this is? -Rainman
Impossible, the raw data and methodology was not available, therefor part of the science process - (replication) is not possible. Real science is engaging, it is open for scrutiny.
Remember "cold fusion" in the late 1980's, the theoretical cure for free energy. The raw data was available unlike CRU and their mafia. The data was tested and proven to be farce.
The CRU data was NOT available. The models you are looking at may have been compromised and manipulated.
Raw data dumped In a statement on its website, the CRU said: ?We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.?
i.e. skewed data
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. ?The CRU is basically saying, ?Trust us?. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,? he said.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
What the CRU country club is, is nothing more than a group of neo-scientists.
More evidence from a reputable scientist Now you're just being a dishonest lieing motherfucker. Did I not post previously that EVERY MOTHER FUCKING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TESTED THE THEORY USING THE METHOD ABOVE AND FOUND IT TO BE FACT!! Now you are telling me that what I posted is just a "tid-bit".
You motherfucker are dishonest, and I have no trust or sympathy for the dishonest. Posting a reply like you are pretending to be a neutral debater. I wasn't born yesterday. -Rainman
Yes but "CRU is the world?s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures." Most of the entities espousing AGW get their data from CRU whom work with IPCC who are involved in this scientific fraud. This is the go to community in AGW, which has been discredited in Climategate.
The scientific consensus falls on its face when;
You withhold data that support the hypothesis
Conspire or intimidate reviewers
Skirt FOI requests in fear of scientific transparency
Intentional manipulation ?1. There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.?
No you dishonest pos. Pseudoscience is any science that isn't using the scientific method as described above. -Rainman
You described CRU science.
When the other major news agencies stop turning a blind eye to this big story, more will come out.
At least the
BBC is reporting it.This is getting juicier by the day,
New Zealand PDF form The New Zealand Government?s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn?t there.
This is telling of the embarrassment from the CRU;
Greenier told greenier to resign The deniers now are the people whom believe AGW is fact.
I am not portraying that I am in the know, merely parroting what is and injecting my opinion of the scenario, not the science.
