Comments on: FOI2009 http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/ The Power of Numeracy Wed, 16 May 2012 18:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: kuhnkat http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-982 kuhnkat Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:07:38 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-982 That would be consistent with CO2 fertilization!!!Even with somewhat less moisture.That also would NOT be consistent with Alarmist Memes!! That would be consistent with CO2 fertilization!!!Even with somewhat less moisture.That also would NOT be consistent with Alarmist Memes!!

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-12021 Anonymous Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-12021 That would be consistent with CO2 fertilization!!! Even with somewhat less moisture. That also would NOT be consistent with Alarmist Memes!! That would be consistent with CO2 fertilization!!!

Even with somewhat less moisture.

That also would NOT be consistent with Alarmist Memes!!

]]> By: kuhnkat http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-981 kuhnkat Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:07:38 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-981 That would be consistent with CO2 fertilization!!!Even with somewhat less moisture.That also would NOT be consistent with Alarmist Memes!! That would be consistent with CO2 fertilization!!!Even with somewhat less moisture.That also would NOT be consistent with Alarmist Memes!!

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-12019 Anonymous Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:49:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-12019 Interesting. The paper seems to show wheat yields increasing. Interesting. The paper seems to show wheat yields increasing.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-980 davids99us Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:49:28 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-980 Interesting. The paper seems to show wheat yields increasing. Interesting. The paper seems to show wheat yields increasing.

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-12017 Anonymous Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:24:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-12017 With regard to the email about the WWF pamphlets, I have tracked down a copy of them in Google cache at http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/research/wwfscenarios.html The WWF paid $US142,000 for them by the way - http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://mikehulme.org/2007/01/current-projects/ The press release from the WWF back in 1999 is here: http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/1999/WWFPresitem10476.html I think I have also found the paper that is referred to in Nature - the one that caused the WWF to come knocking on Mike's door. It's here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6721/pdf/397688a0.pdf My problem is this - I do not have the skills to decipher the original paper in Nature and to compare it to the pamphlets in order to find what changes were made to suit the needs of the WWF for $142,000. Are you able to give it a go? With regard to the email about the WWF pamphlets, I have tracked down a copy of them in Google cache at http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/research/wwfscenarios.html

The WWF paid $US142,000 for them by the way – http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://mikehulme.org/2007/01/current-projects/

The press release from the WWF back in 1999 is here:

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/1999/WWFPresitem10476.html

I think I have also found the paper that is referred to in Nature – the one that caused the WWF to come knocking on Mike’s door. It’s here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6721/pdf/397688a0.pdf

My problem is this – I do not have the skills to decipher the original paper in Nature and to compare it to the pamphlets in order to find what changes were made to suit the needs of the WWF for $142,000. Are you able to give it a go?

]]> By: boyonabike http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-979 boyonabike Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:24:41 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-979 With regard to the email about the WWF pamphlets, I have tracked down a copy of them in Google cache at <a href="http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/%7Emikeh/research/wwfscenarios.html" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www...</a>The WWF paid $US142,000 for them by the way - <a href="http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://mikehulme.org/2007/01/current-projects/" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://mik...</a>The press release from the WWF back in 1999 is here:<a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/1999/WWFPresitem10476.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/19...</a>I think I have also found the paper that is referred to in Nature - the one that caused the WWF to come knocking on Mike's door. It's here:<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6721/pdf/397688a0.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6721...</a>My problem is this - I do not have the skills to decipher the original paper in Nature and to compare it to the pamphlets in order to find what changes were made to suit the needs of the WWF for $142,000. Are you able to give it a go? With regard to the email about the WWF pamphlets, I have tracked down a copy of them in Google cache at http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://www…The WWF paid $US142,000 for them by the way – http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:http://mik…The press release from the WWF back in 1999 is here:http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/19…I think I have also found the paper that is referred to in Nature – the one that caused the WWF to come knocking on Mike's door. It's here:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6721…My problem is this – I do not have the skills to decipher the original paper in Nature and to compare it to the pamphlets in order to find what changes were made to suit the needs of the WWF for $142,000. Are you able to give it a go?

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-12000 Anonymous Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:02:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-12000 I tend to think there are actionable issues here. Perhaps Steve is busy. Fair comment at RC: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-5/#comment-142303 "With all due respect, I have talked to a number of my friends who are active scientists in other fields, and they’ve all made it very clear that they have never seen anything like the content of these e-mails. Sure, there are reasonable explanations for the ‘trick’ comment, and it’s not unusual for people to comment on data and so forth, but many of these e-mails point to some very questionable behavior regarding the use of funds and responses to FOI requests. That’s the big issue here. Such a scandal doesn’t ‘disprove’ AGW, of course, but you’re not going to be able to simply go, “It’s no big deal.”" I would also mention apparent collusion of editors and reviewers on the McLean/Foster papers, the influence IPCC and green groups have over the spin of the science, as well as at CSIRO. As above, this is a lot worse than I have seen in other fields, and that's one reason why its been be burr in my saddle for so long. I tend to think there are actionable issues here. Perhaps Steve is busy. Fair comment at RC: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-5/#comment-142303

“With all due respect, I have talked to a number of my friends who are active scientists in other fields, and they’ve all made it very clear that they have never seen anything like the content of these e-mails. Sure, there are reasonable explanations for the ‘trick’ comment, and it’s not unusual for people to comment on data and so forth, but many of these e-mails point to some very questionable behavior regarding the use of funds and responses to FOI requests. That’s the big issue here. Such a scandal doesn’t ‘disprove’ AGW, of course, but you’re not going to be able to simply go, “It’s no big deal.””

I would also mention apparent collusion of editors and reviewers on the McLean/Foster papers, the influence IPCC and green groups have over the spin of the science, as well as at CSIRO. As above, this is a lot worse than I have seen in other fields, and that’s one reason why its been be burr in my saddle for so long.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-978 davids99us Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:02:35 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-978 I tend to think there are actionable issues here. Perhaps Steve is busy. Fair comment at RC: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-5/#comment-142303" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...</a>"With all due respect, I have talked to a number of my friends who are active scientists in other fields, and they’ve all made it very clear that they have never seen anything like the content of these e-mails. Sure, there are reasonable explanations for the ‘trick’ comment, and it’s not unusual for people to comment on data and so forth, but many of these e-mails point to some very questionable behavior regarding the use of funds and responses to FOI requests. That’s the big issue here. Such a scandal doesn’t ‘disprove’ AGW, of course, but you’re not going to be able to simply go, “It’s no big deal.”"I would also mention apparent collusion of editors and reviewers on the McLean/Foster papers, the influence IPCC and green groups have over the spin of the science, as well as at CSIRO. As above, this is a lot worse than I have seen in other fields, and that's one reason why its been be burr in my saddle for so long. I tend to think there are actionable issues here. Perhaps Steve is busy. Fair comment at RC: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2…“With all due respect, I have talked to a number of my friends who are active scientists in other fields, and they’ve all made it very clear that they have never seen anything like the content of these e-mails. Sure, there are reasonable explanations for the ‘trick’ comment, and it’s not unusual for people to comment on data and so forth, but many of these e-mails point to some very questionable behavior regarding the use of funds and responses to FOI requests. That’s the big issue here. Such a scandal doesn’t ‘disprove’ AGW, of course, but you’re not going to be able to simply go, “It’s no big deal.””I would also mention apparent collusion of editors and reviewers on the McLean/Foster papers, the influence IPCC and green groups have over the spin of the science, as well as at CSIRO. As above, this is a lot worse than I have seen in other fields, and that's one reason why its been be burr in my saddle for so long.

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/foi009/#comment-11999 Anonymous Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:50:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3272#comment-11999 There should be no rush that makes mistakes and muddies the waters further, BUT, there is definite need for expeditious proceedings!! There should be no rush that makes mistakes and muddies the waters further, BUT, there is definite need for expeditious proceedings!!

]]>