It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
Follow the link for the full article
Unless you think my responding with the actual facts of FOI laws in the UK, in the face of your moustache curling and denigration of scientists and public workers in general, along with inane responses like...
...is not addressing your ignorance of FOI in the UK.
Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT
A respected British scientist has admitted that emails taken from his inbox, calling into question many of the accepted truths of global warming, were genuine. The documents appear to show scientists are holding back, or ignoring, evidence. One even suggested using a "trick" to hide a trend of falling temperatures.
Even More ClimateGate on Fox News
PJTV CLIMATEGATE: Emails Cast Doubt on Climate Science
Originally posted by airlouche
S and F
Ok, this is the biggest news I read in my life! Wow, but I still dont understand WHY the Government want us to believe that the earth is getting warmer? Can someone help me to understand?
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You're still defending their deletion practices?
Here they admit that even the computer code is subject to FOIA, as I do think I recall you claiming it wouldnt be:
Suuuure, oooookay, he can "HIDE" behind certain obligations. But you argue as if there wasnt even intent to keep his numbers and methods secret. And then you talk as if you know what they actually deleted. Breath-taking...
Anti-science would be an ongoing concerted effort to stiffle the scientific method, on matters that just so happens to involve policy that begs for a global government / tax.
After Jones faces criminal charges and has to give up the millions in personal wealth he's made during this...
Do you see the REAL significance of this because it is absolutely fatal to the credibility of anything CRU has produced.
What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU programmer, who had access to all the data, access to all the code, access to all the people who developed the code and the models and still HE could still NOT duplicate CRU’s OWN results.
21.Information accessible to applicant by other means.
22.Information intended for future publication.
23.Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.
25.Certificates under ss. 23 and 24: supplementary provisions.
28.Relations within the United Kingdom.
30.Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities.
32.Court records, etc.
35.Formulation of government policy, etc.
36.Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs.
37.Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours.
38.Health and safety.
41.Information provided in confidence.
42.Legal professional privilege.
44.Prohibitions on disclosure.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You'll never budge an inch, too much is at stake!
So would you aruge that the Pentagon Papers shouldnt have been used to end the Vietnam war and indict Nixon? I'd say TOP SECRET military data far outweighs anything you can muster about CRU.
Source: CEI website, 3/04
Sen. James Inhofe
Co-plaintiff in lawsuit
Source: "Earth Last," The American Prospect, 5/7/04
Source: CEI website, various
Source: CEI Website 5-2006
Source: Amicus brief written by Competitive Enterprise Institute
Awarded Julian Simon Award 2003
Source: Bjorn gets Julian Simon Award from CEI
Patrick J. Michaels
Source: CEI Website (2006)
Originally posted by melatonin
We've been here before. The 'tobacco wars'. Science couldn't give a fig about your ideological wishful-thinking.
Congress Launches Climategate Investigation
Read article here
Inhofe Announces Climategate Investigation on Fox News
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by melatonin
Mel, I think it's a bit rich you talking about someone else's ideological motivation, considering your stance on the famed "hockey stick" a couple of years back, which was shown to be complete and utter rubbish.
Originally posted by Long Lance
i love that kind of non sequitur. tobacco was 'busted' by medical researchers (no one believed that smoke was healthy in the first place, obviously) so everything a particular climatology research team does must be correct?
Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. ... Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won’t know what to believe
Luntz memo for republicans
The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field
Committee Report: White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science
The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.