The Science and Politics of Climate Change

On Dec 2, 10:45*pm, "Climate Guy" wrote:
AND..."
" In the latest shocking development in climategate, scientists at the
world's leading research facility studying climate change have admitted they
threw out much of the raw temperature data on which they built their theory
of man-made global warming.

The revelation in the London Sunday Times, reported by environment editor
Jonathan Leake, means the original work that led to modern climate change
theory developed at the now under fire Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the
U.K.'s University of East Anglia, cannot be independently verified by other
academics, critical of CRU's methods. "

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:9YDRm.156048$5n1.59080@attbi_s21...

The Science and Politics of Climate Change

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...10710457457161...

By MIKE HULME

"I am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on
the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which
were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become
difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from
scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and
the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both
political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence".

...

"If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate
science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It
will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public
policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our
legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about
how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy
choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical
values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public
spaces we have created for political argumentation".

See:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...10710457457161...

Yet another outright lie from looney tunes, black helicopter, and I
only use 100 watts of electricity a year, fringe. No such statement
was made. Things were changed so that you can get the data via
anonymous ftp instead of providing a verifiable address, so now
McIntrye and Miloy can continue to lie about how they were prevented
from getting the raw data, but what the heck they are doing that now.


Of course WSJ is fsuch an accurate source of information, like how
stocks will continue to rise and Bear Stearns is solid bank

On Dec 6, 1:35*pm, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:45*pm, "Climate Guy" wrote:



AND..."
" In the latest shocking development in climategate, scientists at the
world's leading research facility studying climate change have admitted they
threw out much of the raw temperature data on which they built their theory
of man-made global warming.

The revelation in the London Sunday Times, reported by environment editor
Jonathan Leake, means the original work that led to modern climate change
theory developed at the now under fire Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the
U.K.'s University of East Anglia, cannot be independently verified by other
academics, critical of CRU's methods. "

The Science and Politics of Climate Change
By MIKE HULME

"I am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on
the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which
were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become
difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from
scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and
the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both
political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence".

...

"If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate
science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It
will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public
policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our
legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about
how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy
choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical
values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public
spaces we have created for political argumentation".

See:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...10710457457161....

Yet another outright lie from looney tunes, black helicopter, and *I
only use 100 watts of electricity a year, fringe. No such statement
was made. Things were changed so that you can get the data via
anonymous ftp instead of providing a verifiable address, so now
McIntrye and Miloy can continue to lie about how they were prevented
from getting the raw data, but what the heck they are doing that now.

Of course WSJ is fsuch an accurate source of information, like how
stocks will continue to rise and Bear Stearns is solid bank

You don't specify, so who is the outright liar, Mike Hulme or Jonathan
Leake, or both? What is your source for such a claim?