On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:42:30 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:
All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their data
and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
propagate their lies and none of this would have happened.
They seem to think the data belongs to them even though the public
had funded the R&D.

If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.


Read the FOI law, isn't it precisely the government
entities that are supposed to be made transparent by
the law, I would assume to prevent a bunch of egotistical
control freaks from doing as they please with public
funds and affecting the rights of the public.

On 1/2/10 8:35 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:42:30 -0600, Sam
wrote:

If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.


Read the FOI law, isn't it precisely the government
entities that are supposed to be made transparent by
the law, I would assume to prevent a bunch of egotistical
control freaks from doing as they please with public
funds and affecting the rights of the public.


Did you read the FOI act?

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:59:14 -0500, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:

tadchem wrote:
On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:
On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...
The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.

Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and his www.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

Class 4 (CRN4) (error = 2C) - Artificial heating sources 10
meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error = 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

I was wondering about that. I'm trying to find a spot in my yard
to place a thermometer which will

1. Measure the real temperature and,
2. I need to be able to see it from a window.

There isn't any.

/BAH

You left out "must not get wet".

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:43:30 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:35 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:42:30 -0600, Sam
wrote:

If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.


Read the FOI law, isn't it precisely the government
entities that are supposed to be made transparent by
the law, I would assume to prevent a bunch of egotistical
control freaks from doing as they please with public
funds and affecting the rights of the public.


Did you read the FOI act?

http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?

http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?i=ex2

On Jan 2, 2:37*am, Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
On Jan 2, 1:44*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



On 1/1/10 6:35 PM, tadchem wrote:

On Jan 1, 4:38 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 1/1/10 3:28 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/12/31/AR200...

The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is
corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific
consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in
a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly
equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when
science comes under attack.

* * * * * * Why don't they speak up, describe the lab
experiments, describe how the temperature sensor
is in a hot box out in the sun.

* * Don't be so silly!-

That's exactly what Anthony Watts and hiswww.surfacestations.org/
blog and a small army of volunteers has been doing, in spite of the
ridicule heaped upon him by the AGW crowd and their sycophants.

To date they have rated 948 of 1221 US surface weather stations in the
USHCN network and found that 69% have thermal biases due to vairous
errors (mostly in siting) that exceed 2° C:

* *Class 4 (CRN4) (error= 2C) - Artificial heating sources10
meters.

* *Class 5 (CRN5) (error= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/
above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking
lot, or concrete surface."

...and this is in the largest network that the *IPCC* considers a
reliable source of surface temperature data!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

* *Would these biases be constant over many decades?

Certainly not for some of the stations that have been encroached on
over time. What would be interesting is to see a summary of the data
just for the stations that they rate as good.

Indeed, those are precisely the locations that should be subject to
individual data analysis - using the original records without applying
empirically derived corrections, but instead fitting a specific
regression model containing functional terms known to be contributing
e.g a sinusoid of cycle 365.24 days to allow for seasonality, another
of ca. 11 years to match the solar cycle, etc.

Why aren't the so-called sceptics doing this? I have a good idea why -
they're actually not sceptics at all, they're denialists ;-(

They do show one on the
site that actually shows a drop in temperature over the century but
that could be cherry picked.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:42:30 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:


All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their
data and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
propagate their lies and none of this would have happened. They seem to
think the data belongs to them even though the public had funded the
R&D.


If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.

Lame excuse pulled out of a hat.

On 1/2/10 9:34 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:43:30 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:35 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:42:30 -0600, Sam
wrote:

If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.


Read the FOI law, isn't it precisely the government
entities that are supposed to be made transparent by
the law, I would assume to prevent a bunch of egotistical
control freaks from doing as they please with public
funds and affecting the rights of the public.


Did you read the FOI act?

http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?

http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?i=ex2


Did you read it?

On 1/2/10 11:18 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:42:30 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:


All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their
data and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
propagate their lies and none of this would have happened. They seem to
think the data belongs to them even though the public had funded the
R&D.


If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.

Lame excuse pulled out of a hat.

I've had plenty of different funding sources over the years... some
had restriction and some not.

On 1/2/10 2:45 PM, 7 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/2/10 11:18 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:42:30 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:11 AM, 7 wrote:


All they had to do was obey the law and honor FOI requests for their
data and other material they sought to keep from the public in order to
propagate their lies and none of this would have happened. They seem to
think the data belongs to them even though the public had funded the
R&D.


If you had ever received federal funding, you would realized that
there may be disclosure restrictions as part of the contract. This
often means that the research may be submitted for peer review
publication and in reports to the funding agency and depends on what
the policies of the host institutions are and the contracts under
which the funding was granted. When there are no restrictions, data
may be freely shared and often is.

Lame excuse pulled out of a hat.

I've had plenty of different funding sources over the years... some
had restriction and some not.

You didn't directly (and properly) answer to the sharp needle you are being
prodded with in this argument.

And that was there is no such restriction!!
If restriction exist, it relates to national security or private data - most
of which do come into public domain if the source of
the private data took public money.

You could by way of example explain the restriction that forced
you to hide your data in each and every case.


I could, but I won't. I made my point whether you accept it or not.

On 1/3/10 4:40 AM, 7 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

I made my point whether you accept it or not.

Not to me you haven't.


No big deal.