Comments on: FOI Myth #1: USA

By: Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That?

Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That? — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:37:33 +0000

[...] hacking of the IPCC process and the scientific process itself was exposed primarily because of the “pressure” put on the hackers by the FIOA process. And as the mails also show, the hackers moved to thwart the [...]

By: CA Revisionism « The Policy Lass

CA Revisionism « The Policy Lass — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 04:31:11 +0000

[...] at Climate Audit, I noticed that McI reinstated the comments of mine in the FOI Myth #1 post he deleted that sent me into the penalty [...]

By: DCC

DCC — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:51:40 +0000

snip – responding to OT comment

By: Julian Constantine

Julian Constantine — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:30:12 +0000

I fully support your requests for data from the climate scientists.The Climategate emails show definite weaseling as do the explanations for them.I personally retain some doubts as to the causes and dynamics of climate change.There are various simple stats that serve to illustrate this position.Firstly the fact of paleohistorical warming and cooling trends and secondly the example of Mt Pinotubo,which was cited as having produced more greenhouse gases in it’s most recent eruption than had been produced by all industry since the industrial revolution.

By: Heino

Heino — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:28:57 +0000

The words “endless, time-consuming demands” are.

By: DCC

DCC — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:00:25 +0000

The chronology is a bit confusing. If the data was posted in January, 2009, why are there two references to October, 2009, as “in late October 2009, I emailed Santer.”

Should these be October, 2008?

Steve: Yes. typo.

By: JohnG

JohnG — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 16:39:35 +0000

Norbet – While data management & documentation is used by scientist it isn’t science, nor will it ever be. I guess by your definition, once the management of large amounts of indigestible data becomes easy, or digestible, it’s up to the scientist to make it indigestible again? That concept/logic may give you political cover but it isn’t science.

Again, your posts are too funny and give me quite a chuckle.

By: ChrisZ

ChrisZ — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:55:44 +0000

Sorry Norbert, but "doing easy things in a complicated way" is not even an old tongue-in-cheek definition of science, but rather of poetry. I trust you'll agree that in view of this, readers will look at your postings as expressions of poetic licence and fantasy rather than scientific rigor and reality.

By: Norbert

Norbert — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:28:05 +0000

Science never stops at doing “easy” things. As soon as something becomes easy, science has already moved on to new territory.

By: emelks

emelks — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:22:18 +0000

The editorial makes perfect sense when one understands the underlying premise. The editor(s) consider(s) this group of individuals to be more than scientists, more than people–they’re priests preaching the dogma of a pseudo-religion. No one demands the Pope release his notes on an encyclical. Why should anyone dare demand the data and processes relevant to the dogma of “climate change?” That is heresy, and the climate changers won’t tolerate heresy.

Of course, I refute the premise.