Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Bullshit. Sorry, no other way to call it. Straight-up, unadulterated bullshit. Those emails discuss (in very plain language) destruction of data (which is illegal when dealing with data subject to a Freedom Of Information request), manipulation of data (unless "hide the decline" has a different meaning in your world), falsification and substitution of data (all with the intent of producing a desired, predetermined result), redefining what "peer reviewed" means in order to exclude conflicting views from debate, and the systematic suppression of dissenting viewpoints within academia.
|
Please, show me where any manipulation of data is stated or implied.
The email about the "trick" to "hide the decline" talks about a graph, not a data set. There is no talk of data being destroyed, only emails about that data. And the line about "peer review" is an off the cuff comment, and not an actual discussion of changing it.
Are these honorable things? Certainly not. But they fall way short of anything they are being accused of doing. And distortion and misleading statements about what those hacked emails contain are certainly at least as dishonorable.
---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyWolf
Will... that would be me.
I do not have a formal education in climatology, but my 15 years as a computer forecaster/modeler put me in the situation of having to forecast (among other things) the effect of climate on electricity consumption. I have worked with climatologists, meteorologists, environmentalists, statisticians, and computer scientists working on, not climatological models, but electrical system models. Along the way, I gained more than a passing familiarity with the various climatological models used, the generic techniques used, and the strengths and weaknesses of various models. I was offered a research position at Purdue University to pursue that and other effects on the electrical system.
The one thing I will say about forecasting ANYTHING is that it is best described as driving a car blindfolded, taking directions from a guy in the back seat who's looking out the rear window. The only thing you know for sure is that you will be wrong.
|
Working as a forecaster is hardly akin to being a climatologist. And as a forecaster you should be able to know that knowledge of generic techniques mean nothing, given how specific details in any modeling can lead to completely different outcomes.
And I am not saying this to claim that I, myself, am any sort of expert. Just that, so far, I have seen nothing to suggest the prevailing consensus among real climatologists is a part of some vast conspiracy.
The idea that a handful of paragraphs pulled from over 1000 emails proves that "conspiracy" is ludicrous.