Homestead mailing list

[DSanner106 AT aol.com]

Lynda,
    I didn't say anything about what you are accrediting to  me below, and 
it is not what the director said on his BBC america interview.  Just to jump 
into it anyway though......  The original data was destroyed,  the product 
of data entry, not copies of the originals is all that remains.  Those 
numbers now on file received "treatment" and are work product, not  original 
data. That much he admitted when questioned. It matters not one bit  whether 
it 
was Thursday or thirty years ago either, as it still means today we  are 
basing these claims on data that is not original and pure. If you don't  
believe that scientists would twist things up a bit if it meant a steady 
stream  
of research dollars, and if you do not believe politicians would work hand in 
 hand with scientists that would cheat, then you are never going to 
understand  why these admissions, and the leaked emails are very important. 
We are 
supposed  to be able to believe in what scientists tell us, they are 
supposed to use the  scientific method do get their answers and tell us when 
they 
are merely  guessing. It matters no one bit who is right or wrong here, but 
the scientists  who wrote of manipulating data to support their claims, and 
worked hard to block  publications of their peers that disagreed should be 
fired. This is the data  genius, internet inventor Gore used to base his 
schlocumentary on..... By the  way, did you see him on TV two nights ago 
claiming 
the earth is millions of  degrees just a short distance below the 
surface???? hilarious.
 
Drew
 
_http://www.infowars.com/science-according-to-al-gore-earth-interior-million
s-of-degrees/_ 
(http://www.infowars.com/science-according-to-al-gore-earth-interior-millions-of-degrees/)
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/11/2009 3:53:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
lurine AT com-pair.net writes:

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.

Lynda
--"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 
> this
> sort  of  thing of course, but other countries are reporting it.In 
>  re-reading
> the written  article I now see they destroyed source  data up to 150 
years 
> old.
>
>  _http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece_
>  (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
>
>  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 
> remember
>  other things I  distrusted released info on during the Bush years, I  
> really
> 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 
>  dollars,
> 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 
>  faith.

_______________________________________________
Homestead  list and  subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change  your homestead list member  options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/dsanner106%40aol.com
View  the archives  at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead