Comments on: Exclusive: Q&A on Climategate with Britain’s Chief Police Officers

By: Denis Ables

Denis Ables — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:30:24 +0000

You mean “peer review” as in the CRU scenario, right ?
(kinda like where your mother vouches for you)

By: Ozzie

Ozzie — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:05:59 +0000

A) “Phil” as you call him

It IS his name. What do you think I should call him? “George”?

did not delete the data in question. That deletion was made in the 80’s before he was even at the CRU.

If it was deleted before he got there, then what data did he use? Non-existent data? Did he make up his own figures because the real ones had been deleted? (rhetorical question)

Are you sure you know what’s going on here?

Me??!!! YOU’RE the one who just claimed that a scientist was using data that you claim didn’t exist!

‘It’s also not possible now for him to prove it wasn’t.’
You can’t prove you aren’t a child molester, does that mean we should assume you are?

Different scenarios. Even though it’s not possible to prove a negative, there is nothing to suggest that I am a child molester. However there is plenty to suggest that Phil is did “fiddle the books”.

By: Dominic

Dominic — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:54:13 +0000

Be sure to put your tin foil hat on, they are out to get you.

By: Dominic

Dominic — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:52:25 +0000

Sorry but I don’t consider blogs to be scientific sources. Do you have anything published in an appropriate peer reviewed journal?

By: Dominic

Dominic — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:50:59 +0000

A) “Phil” as you call him did not delete the data in question. That deletion was made in the 80′s before he was even at the CRU. Are you sure you know what’s going on here?

B) I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow.

‘Given the results, it’s quite likely that the data he worked with was a tad tricked up’

Justify the above statement.

‘It’s also not possible now for him to prove it wasn’t.’
You can’t prove you aren’t a child molester, does that mean we should assume you are?

By: Ozzie

Ozzie — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:32:43 +0000

That may well be where the original data is stored, but now that Phil has dumped his stuff can you guarantee that this is what he worked with? Given the results, it’s quite likely that the data he worked with was a tad tricked up. It’s also not possible now for him to prove it wasn’t.

By: froggy

froggy — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:05:39 +0000

Sorry, but i cant help but notice its on a government domain dominic, so i think i may just class the info as potentially bias, as they wouldnt let anything that goes against the governments “ideals” go public.

By: mitchel44

mitchel44 — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:50:31 +0000

Here you go Dom, ChiefIO took GHCN apart for you.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/ncdc-ghcn-issues/

Enjoy!

By: Dominic

Dominic — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:28:48 +0000

Here, you can have the raw data:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd_all.tar.gz

I thought all the anti-sciencers were eager to get the raw data so they could independently verify the CRU’s results? Am I wrong?

By: ADE

ADE — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:05:52 +0000

Don’t worry climate scientists,we all know you were all suffering from “STRESS”,and any police officer will tell you ,that will get you off the hook.
After all,whats a few billion here and there,rumour says Obama will pay for a second go! so thermometers and chain saws at the ready,hand me that copy of Grimms faery tales will you.