Russians Attack Climategate Scientists

[code1211]

Still the pathological liar, I see.

McIntyre has a BS in math, McKitrick is an economist, and Spencer, (LimpBoy's climatologist) is the only scientist, but he along with his partner John Christy got caught fudging the Troposphere data by using the opposite sign to correct for Diurnal Satellite Drift.

Deniers have nothing but phony "data" and phony "scientists."

Christy and Spencer didn't 'fudge' a thing. Through the HONEST process of peer-review, errors were later found. And, through the HONEST process of peer-review both published additional data, additional methodology, additional analyses. There were no tricks involved. There was no 'fudging' involved. All was above board. All was quite normal, too, in the expansion of scientific knowledge.

Leave it to political hacks like you and dilettantes in science to call it something it is not.

Both you and Rocks make me cringe in how you play at science and as a result, you do science a disservice.

Sure, we're supposed to believe that, even though this is their field of speciality, they had no idea which sign to use to correct for Diurnal Satellite Drift and just happened to guess the wrong sign which just happened to support their bias. After all, even though they had no idea of which sign to use, there were no books or other scientists to consult.

Still waiting for your source and an explanation of the actual difference as an impact to the results.

 

[Si modo]

Sure, we're supposed to believe that, even though this is their field of speciality, they had no idea which sign to use to correct for Diurnal Satellite Drift and just happened to guess the wrong sign which just happened to support their bias. After all, even though they had no idea of which sign to use, there were no books or other scientists to consult.

Yeah, you're supposed to believe that. Unless you have no confidence in the peer-review process. Is that the case for you, Ed?

Well, there you go again, it's you deniers ....

What am I denying?

.... who claim the peer review system is corrupted by the good old boy system. ....

Jones, Mann, et al are being investigated for just that. Christy and Spencer are squeaky clean on that front.

It's you deniers ....

What am I denying?

... who rarely submit your claims to peer review ....

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Are you trying to say the work by Spencer and Christy has NOT been peer-reviewed? If so, you're wrong. Are you trying to say that I have not had my work peer-revewed? If so, you're wrong. So, you really aren't making much sense.

... and then cry foul when the few that do get submitted get shot down. ....

Your implication that Spencer and Christy are not peer-reviewed is wrong. Their integrity is intact. Jones, Mann, Hansen, et al ARE under investigation for peer-review manipulation among other scientific integrity violations.

.... Christy and Spencer's motivation for using the opposite sign to correct for Diurnal Drift have nothing to do with peer review. ....

Really? Link to the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that. No blogs, now. If you want to play at science, you must actually discuss the science, not just parrot another.

.... Just because they were caught fudging their data by peer review does not mean it was an "honest" mistake as you claim.

Just because you say it was fudging yet again, does not make it any more true than the first time you said it. This is the NORMAL process in peer-review - all in the open for all scientists to see and to expand knowledge, for those with integrity. For those who haven't integrity, it is done behind closed doors in hopes that it is never discovered. Oops.

 

[Ravi]

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap.:

"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations."

The Russians are accusing the British of modifying Russian datasets...it will be interesting to see where this leads.

A Russian economic think tank...this is very amusing. From what I understand, the guy doesn't know much about economics, let alone science.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[edthecynic]

Christy and Spencer didn't 'fudge' a thing. Through the HONEST process of peer-review, errors were later found. And, through the HONEST process of peer-review both published additional data, additional methodology, additional analyses. There were no tricks involved. There was no 'fudging' involved. All was above board. All was quite normal, too, in the expansion of scientific knowledge.

Leave it to political hacks like you and dilettantes in science to call it something it is not.

Both you and Rocks make me cringe in how you play at science and as a result, you do science a disservice.

Sure, we're supposed to believe that, even though this is their field of speciality, they had no idea which sign to use to correct for Diurnal Satellite Drift and just happened to guess the wrong sign which just happened to support their bias. After all, even though they had no idea of which sign to use, there were no books or other scientists to consult.

Still waiting for your source and an explanation of the actual difference as an impact to the results.

BALONEY!

I first posted the graph and link 2 days ago, but the mods (probably Komrad Dupe, if I had to guess) tried to cover your butt and deleted my post. I reposted it yesterday, and you cut and ran from that thread.
Here is the link to yesterday's post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1819013-post62.html