2 ms·

> Please link this email then? You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? Google is your friend. (I missed the phr

by anamax 17y ago

> Please link this email then? You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? Google is your friend. (I missed the phrasing a bit.) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-copenhagen-summit-nears-climategate-dogs-global-warming-debate http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-copenhage... http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP3NI20091126 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP3NI20091126 > > They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using? > They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and then you can do those sources. You're backpedaling. Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear that the original sources still have the data. > Now that physical observations are starting to replace pure models You're rejecting them. In addition to rejecting the temperature data, you're rejecting the hurricane data. http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ > I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be. The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not.

KirinDave 17y ago
> You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? No, I've actually read the leaked emails in their entirety. And I suppose you're talking about the quote: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Because that's the only quote from the email in either of your articles that caught my eye as salient. If you were referring to something else, please clarify. Anyways, that's not talking about the general temperature trends. Go read the email it came from. Or you can read the summary with quotes from Trebeth that MediaMatters researched so that you don't have to: http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 And before you say MediaMatters is biased, their sources are listed and verifiable. If you're gonna link CSM I think MM is at least fair game. > You're backpedaling. I don't think that word means what you think it means. > Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear that the original sources still have the data. That's not the fault of the group you're claiming discarded the data. It's not feasible for every project to keep every piece of data they've ever touched. It might be approaching that in 2009-2010, but when the original work was carried out (and historically, to account for bureaucratic lag) it was not. You can argue it's bad, and I won't disagree that it's disappointing. It is not damning, though. The endless cycle of claim/proof/verify is what science is. > The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not. That's absurd. Have you looked at the EIS data? There isn't enough glacier to sustain that consistent and quick a decline for 34 years. Even lowballing the observed decline in some areas that's hundreds of miles of glacier. Even saying this suggests you haven't even looked at this footage. I encourage you to. Even if you do not believe me or the data, the images presented are beautiful.

by anamax 17y ago

KirinDave 17y ago

> You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most often? No, I've actually read the leaked emails in their entirety. And I suppose you're talking about the quote: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Because that's the only quote from the email in either of your articles that caught my eye as salient. If you were referring to something else, please clarify. Anyways, that's not talking about the general temperature trends. Go read the email it came from. Or you can read the summary with quotes from Trebeth that MediaMatters researched so that you don't have to: http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002 And before you say MediaMatters is biased, their sources are listed and verifiable. If you're gonna link CSM I think MM is at least fair game. > You're backpedaling. I don't think that word means what you think it means. > Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear that the original sources still have the data. That's not the fault of the group you're claiming discarded the data. It's not feasible for every project to keep every piece of data they've ever touched. It might be approaching that in 2009-2010, but when the original work was carried out (and historically, to account for bureaucratic lag) it was not. You can argue it's bad, and I won't disagree that it's disappointing. It is not damning, though. The endless cycle of claim/proof/verify is what science is. > The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not. That's absurd. Have you looked at the EIS data? There isn't enough glacier to sustain that consistent and quick a decline for 34 years. Even lowballing the observed decline in some areas that's hundreds of miles of glacier. Even saying this suggests you haven't even looked at this footage. I encourage you to. Even if you do not believe me or the data, the images presented are beautiful.