lurine at com-pair.net
Fri Dec 11 15:51:42 EST 2009
Drew, I have a problem with your logic. I'm a A to B, B to C kinda person.
I think Mr. Spock is great. Logic is my ideal.
So, I am having a problem with your leap from "the originals - stored on
paper and magnetic tape - were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a
new building" to "data is manipulated" and "fake science."
And, I fail to see any reason for hysteria about something that was done
THIRTY years ago when the person they are screaming about AND whose e-mails
they stole AND *manipulated* wasn't even employed there then.
I also fail to see what all the hysteria is about when anyone who wants can
reconstruct the raw data. They didn't actually dump the *original* data.
They dumped the data they originally collected. There is a BIG difference
between the two. While both are "called" original data, both aren't the
actual original, original data. They destroyed *their* original data.
This whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had on another list with
some gal from Chicago who decided she was an expert on earthquakes. She had
decided, based on her interpretation of science, that we are having more and
more earthquakes, that areas with earthquakes are in more danger and that
any day now California is going to slide into the ocean. She wasn't
interested in looking at where her data came from and how it was collected.
She also decided that scientists were manipulating data and weren't being
honest with folks when they said we aren't have more earthquakes.
Yes, there are more recorded minor earthquakes. No, there aren't more
earthquakes. "Recorded" is the operative word. There are now more stations
recording earthquakes AND the old equipment has been replaced with much more
sensitive modern seismographs and they are now able to record much smaller
earthquakes. The determining factor on earthquakes is to compare apples to
apples and oranges to oranges. They compared the number of earthquakes of
the type and size that have been recorded since any records have been kept
and the answer is no, there aren't more earthquakes.
--"I'm fascinated by the hard line you're drawing over religion -- It gets
used too much, as an excuse, a fall guy, a weapon, a con. A lot of people,
maybe most, don't mean it except when it suits them." Dallas
----- Original Message -----
From: <DSanner106 at aol.com>
>I try to watch international news on this type of story and BBC America
> showed the interview, I think about a week ago. I have attached a UK news
> story on the press release over there. US media is not going to pick up
> sort of thing of course, but other countries are reporting it.In
> the written article I now see they destroyed source data up to 150 years
> I was not implying that private sector funding is perfect, that is not
> involved here so not important. I was merely pointing out that there are
> obvious problems with government funding when politics are involved. We
> should be
> able to take science at face value but cannot as long as data is
> manipulated to assure government favored results are reached. Though I
> other things I distrusted released info on during the Bush years, I
> don't remember a big anti global warming push supported by fake science,
> as we
> see here.
> We need an independent scientific academy, not funded by political
> but operating from a pool gathered from ALL public and private research
> entities. Similar things exist in other countries and essentially apply a
> seal of approval that the scientific method has been followed and the
> study is
> legitimate. No conclusions drawn, merely sanctioning the study. Studies
> that are not run through the academy would not carry the same degree of
More information about the Homestead