Skip to comments.
Speculation on the Hadley CRU Hacking Story...
Vanity ^
| 20NOV09
| Marie
Posted on 11/19/2009 10:21:38 PM PST by Marie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
To: sergeantdave
There are over 1000 emails and every other ind of document file you can imagine and I just got my hands on it. I’m sure that somebody will find it (if it’s there) before the day is over.
41
posted on
11/20/2009 11:45:19 AM PST
by
Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)
To: widdle_wabbit; Marie
Lots of concern about stuff flying around....sure sign of skulduggery....
To: iopscusa; Marie
Thanks for the heads up on this.
43
posted on
11/20/2009 10:00:53 PM PST
by
nathanbedford
("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Marie; All
There's all kinds of good tidbits in these emails. Lots of talk about “forcing” the data, i.e., selecting time scale and other data, and then "smoothing" the data-points to hide anomalies, so that the graphs and other compilations suits their agenda. Using Google Desktop and the word indexing features therein provides researchers of this data to isolate searches better by looking for their primary email host (”uea.ac.uk”) and other any other key words. For example, this is from the file 1153254016.txt: >>> But I >>> think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional >>> scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to >>> achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13 >>> probably also hold in 6.14. >>> However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat, >>> specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude >>> of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency >>> solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period >>> removes the interpretation that we don’t even know the forcing today. >>> So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different >>> presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these >>> competing demands. >>> One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat’s >>> implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically >>> dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of >>> wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then >>> presumably the same holds for 6.13. |
44
posted on
11/20/2009 10:24:08 PM PST
by
BP2
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
To: BP2
To: Marie
46
posted on
11/21/2009 12:25:33 AM PST
by
plenipotentiary
(Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
To: plenipotentiary
47
posted on
11/21/2009 1:59:00 AM PST
by
Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)
To: nathanbedford
48
posted on
11/21/2009 2:40:40 AM PST
by
DB
To: Marie; fanfan
fanfanHad asked about ... "Phil Jones" on the long thread I started... regarding the web site that had the email data base and a search engine to look thru it...
Your post here at #8 details some info on Phil Jones....
One point I would add is that the CRU was initially funded by US Dollars...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson