6 ms·

Long time HN user using a throwaway account because of the lynch mob ( both sides ) The article page 3 mentions a crucial get-out-of-jail card that HN is takin

Long time HN user using a throwaway account because of the lynch mob ( both sides ) The article page 3 mentions a crucial get-out-of-jail card that HN is taking completely hypocritically at face value. Namely that NOAA adjustements are in response to Met Office/Hadley/UEA adjustements. this should be setting off "tampered" alarm bells Lets step away to make parallels: UK Copyright extended to harmonise with US. US copyright then extended to harmonise with UK copyright HN response: The copyright holders are colluding to extend the term globally ====== NOAA adjustments: We're harmonising because of Met Office / Hadley / UEA adjustments HN: Yay science, nothing fishy could be going on here because Scientists.

EdwardDiego 10y ago
You're comparing an abstract set of laws used to control ownership of intellectual property, which are often abused, to scientists trying to collect the most accurate data they can? You don't see a difference?
- cool_look 10y ago
  difference yes. you dont see the similarities?
inimino 10y ago
Instead of reading a negative interpretation into one sentence, did you actually look into the research which is just a few clicks away? Of course you didn't. The adjustments were in response to new data and new analysis, which you can see if you bother to look at the paper before posting ill-founded speculation. The article is pointing out that the UK did the analysis first, so NOAA was behind. You've turned this into some kind of harmonization of some other kind which just isn't there. This sets off "tamper" alarm bells only for someone who is (a) expecting to find tampering and (b) didn't do even the most trivial research to falsify their suspicions.
- cool_look 10y ago
  i did read the links... what basis do you have for thinking i didn't. so tell me, what about the radiosonds not corresponding to the corrections? oh, did you not know about counter evidence outside this article that also point to tampering ? no, you just slung mud https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-217/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/weekly-climate-and-en...
  - inimino 10y ago
    > what basis do you have for thinking i didn't The paper contradicts what you implied. > so tell me, what about [changing the topic to something that hasn't been shot down yet and also doesn't demonstrate what you claim] I think we're done here.

EdwardDiego 10y ago

You're comparing an abstract set of laws used to control ownership of intellectual property, which are often abused, to scientists trying to collect the most accurate data they can? You don't see a difference?

cool_look 10y ago
difference yes. you dont see the similarities?

inimino 10y ago

Instead of reading a negative interpretation into one sentence, did you actually look into the research which is just a few clicks away? Of course you didn't. The adjustments were in response to new data and new analysis, which you can see if you bother to look at the paper before posting ill-founded speculation. The article is pointing out that the UK did the analysis first, so NOAA was behind. You've turned this into some kind of harmonization of some other kind which just isn't there. This sets off "tamper" alarm bells only for someone who is (a) expecting to find tampering and (b) didn't do even the most trivial research to falsify their suspicions.

cool_look 10y ago
i did read the links... what basis do you have for thinking i didn't. so tell me, what about the radiosonds not corresponding to the corrections? oh, did you not know about counter evidence outside this article that also point to tampering ? no, you just slung mud https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-217/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/weekly-climate-and-en...
- inimino 10y ago
  > what basis do you have for thinking i didn't The paper contradicts what you implied. > so tell me, what about [changing the topic to something that hasn't been shot down yet and also doesn't demonstrate what you claim] I think we're done here.