Comments on: The Rising Sea

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:30:00 +0000

Speaking of the morally indefensible, here’s a debunking of Monckton’s claim that the Great Barrier Reef waters are not warming:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2813459.htm

By: tomfarmer

tomfarmer — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:15:22 +0000

got that, thanks gareth..

By: tomfarmer

tomfarmer — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:35:22 +0000

PS,
whistleblower sounds more morally defensible to skeptic community and if you repeat something enough it becomes true, right?

Quite possibly. Yet one is left wondering what kind of community would require ( or accept need of ) an excuse. Covering criminality in light of Penn’s finding on Mann..?

By: Gareth

Gareth — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:52:29 +0000

You might want to check out this link (top tweet at the moment) - IT discussion of what happened. "Whistleblower" looks extremely unlikely. Finger points to US east coast.

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:49:52 +0000

Since the person responsible for the hack used sophisticated penetration method to hack and also to get into the Realclimate site, you would have to say that the probability is against a whistleblower. However whistleblower sounds more morally defensible to skeptic community and if you repeat something enough it becomes true, right?

By: tomfarmer

tomfarmer — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:20:49 +0000

One reading of the aforementioned poneke blog tells of what PS termed the “CRU hack” as that of a whistleblower. How did poneke know this..

Anyone?

By: Gosman

Gosman — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:55:20 +0000

So how about you comment on Fred Pearce’s following article then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

This seems very similar in tone to Poneke’s blog post you dismissed completely as entirely without merit.

The conclusions are different of course but only by a matter of degrees. Poneke overstepped the mark by claiming the CRU controlled the peer reviewed process while Pearce highlights that the CRU members tried to manipulate it.

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:35:07 +0000

As expected, an embarrassed silence from the denialists shows they have no response to the science of AGW other than to change the subject…

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:41:50 +0000

Great links, Phil. Now watch the “sceptics” scuttle sideways…

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:31:59 +0000

“I have no idea about the denialist camp but I do know that various people on here, including Gareth, spent an awful lot of time trying to defend, or deflect the attacks on, the members of the CRU that Fred Pearce rightly criticised.”

Well someone should. You think a court should only here the prosecution? We have a lot of quotes that are being bandied around without their context, lots of tut, tut, and very few bothering to look at the context. I’m not going to rehash – Gavin Schmidt has presented the context with great patience over at RealClimate, but I’m guessing those crowing about CRU hack arent interested in reading it.

All completely irrelevant to the basic science as has been noted ad nauseum. Find me some counter published counter to
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
or
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
or
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/philipona2004-radiation.pdf
and I might be impressed.