Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of data

[HarpoSpoke]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en...945445.ece

Quote:The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change skeptics.

This shows the "no big deal" Climategate emails are a big deal after all. They at least have to make a show of doing something.

But the last (bolded) part is the most important part. This is how severely politics has infected AGW theory. First, they again demonstrate their attitude that skeptics must not be allowed to participate. (A normal part of any science up until now) Then they demonstrate how "protecting the cause" is much more important than taking extra care to find the truth (pro or con).

This entire process is contaminated to an amazing extent. I can't believe anyone could defend such practices.

[Richard S Courtney.]

I present the case for the prosecution.

Quote:The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change skeptics.

The prosecution rests.

Richard

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change skeptics.

What is wrong with the idea of examining data and making them available? Oh that's right,must control the data for political use.

Pathetic.

[JohnWho]

(12-05-2009 08:59 AM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote:  I present the case for the prosecution.

Quote:The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change skeptics.

The prosecution rests.

Rests, lights up a cigar, and sips a fine cognac, I'd say.

Climate Change skeptics would seize upon re-examined data? You think?

What could the "re-examined" data show that they might fear? If it is "re-examined" properly, without the artificial inflations, it will surely show less warming than what was shown by the first "examination", would it not?

"Must suppress the truth" does seem somewhat damning, huh?

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-05-2009 12:51 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  

(12-05-2009 08:59 AM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote:  I present the case for the prosecution.

Quote:The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change skeptics.

The prosecution rests.

Rests, lights up a cigar, and sips a fine cognac, I'd say.

Climate Change skeptics would seize upon re-examined data? You think?

What could the "re-examined" data show that they might fear? If it is "re-examined" properly, without the artificial inflations, it will surely show less warming than what was shown by the first "examination", would it not?

"Must suppress the truth" does seem somewhat damning, huh?

I read it to mean they are actually frightened of even beginning the examination. ...For fear that skeptics will seize on that act as a weakness in the theory. Never mind what the eventual results may be.

And they are probably right. But that should be a secondary concern to insuring that the data is correct. I cannot believe they are willing sacrifice that to avoid "looking bad". (Well...I do believe it actually)

[JohnWho]

(12-05-2009 01:09 PM)HarpoSpoke Wrote:  I read it to mean they are actually frightened of even beginning the examination. ...For fear that skeptics will seize on that act as a weakness in the theory. Never mind what the eventual results may be.

And they are probably right. But that should be a secondary concern to insuring that the data is correct. I cannot believe they are willing sacrifice that to avoid "looking bad". (Well...I do believe it actually)

Well, with the current CRU results clearly shown to be manipulated in a biased manner, someone should be re-examining something, that's for sure.

In my opinion, the "skeptics" will seize on, and already have, the probability that the reported information is erroneous. Not only should the data be re-examined, but the data should be "re"-examined by "re"placed scientists and their entire teams, too.

No sense in allowing the foxes to evaluate the hen house, is there?

[Sunsettommy]

Now WE know why skepticism in science research is very important.

[JohnWho]

I knew I knew that already.

[Sunsettommy]

(12-05-2009 01:35 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  I knew I knew that already.

Whoops I meant us,not you.I changed my post.

[JohnWho]

I knew I knew that you would do that, too.

more -

[Richard S Courtney.]

HarpoSpoke:

Quote:I read it to mean they are actually frightened of even beginning the examination. ...For fear that skeptics will seize on that act as a weakness in the theory. Never mind what the eventual results may be.

So what? If they are sure the data is robust then they must be sure its evaluation will demolish the "skeptics" arguments. Indeed, the result of the evaluation would discredit any "skeptics" who had seized on the decision to conduct the evaluation as being "a sign of weakness in the theory".

The statement of their fear tells all that needs to be known. As I said;
"The prosecution rests".

Richard

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-06-2009 04:09 AM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote:  HarpoSpoke:

Quote:I read it to mean they are actually frightened of even beginning the examination. ...For fear that skeptics will seize on that act as a weakness in the theory. Never mind what the eventual results may be.

So what? If they are sure the data is robust then they must be sure its evaluation will demolish the "skeptics" arguments. Indeed, the result of the evaluation would discredit any "skeptics" who had seized on the decision to conduct the evaluation as being "a sign of weakness in the theory".

The statement of their fear tells all that needs to be known. As I said;
"The prosecution rests".

Richard

Agreed.