"The references were utter nonsense that defied basic physics with silly hand waving arguments. "
Sorry. YOU are the one doing the hand-waving here. Can you refute Latour's math or not? If not, your own claim that it is "hand waving" is nothing but hand-waving.
You don't get to dismiss a scientific argument by simply disagreeing with it and calling it hand-waving. You must refute it or concede the point. Otherwise you lose the debate.
Anthony Watts of WUWT, Roy Spencer, and others have tried to refute Latour's arguments, and even performed some experiments to test it. As it turns out, the experiments were ill-conceived and did not test what they thought they were testing.
Those are just two examples. But the point is: nobody has yet successfully refuted Latour's science. And you don't get to dismiss it just because you don't like it.
"Since JQP's erroneous comments were not moderated into oblivion, correcting their spread of grossly unscientific misinformation which cast aspersions on the fine Nature article is about as far from nit-picking as one can get. "
I have provided evidence that you are wrong. You have provided NO evidence that I am wrong. All you've done is name-calling (things like "grossly unscientific misinformation"). Guess what, man? Your saying so doesn't make it so.
It's all about evidence. I have it, you don't. If you want to present some, I'd be happy to look at it. But until then, you have no argument.
"What is the limiting temperature of a perfectly insulated box with a constant input of energy? "
Your question is ambiguous. The temperature where? At the surface of the box, or at the external surface of the insulation? (The external surface of the box and internal surface of the insulation will be the same.) Where is your energy source? Is it external or internal? Is your box and insulation surrounded by vacuum? Etc. etc. etc. This question is too vague and assumes far too many things.
You will have to define your problem better. It's far too vague, and it doesn't resemble Earth at all.
Of course this little mind game is an impossible situation, since there is no such thing as a perfect insulator. In a perfect insulator, there can be no convective heat transfer (that's what an insulator does: it prevents convective heat transfer), and if it is transparent to the radiation at hand, there will be no radiative heat transfer either. So it makes no sense to even discuss the "temperature" of the insulation because there is none: no radiation whatsoever. It could neither absorb radiation or give any off.
But in a more realistic scenario (no perfect insulator), as explained in excruciating detail in the pdf I linked to before:
According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the surface of your sphere (which is what is primarily absorbing and re-radiating your input) will never exceed the radiative temperature of the input. I.e., at equilibrium there is no "flux" or net heat transfer (W/m^2 * s incoming = W/m^2 * s outgoing, net flux is zero) at that surface. There are only 2 other possibilities: the temperature would go up until it outshone the rest of the universe, or it would cool down to zero. But those things simply do not happen: there must be an equilibrium (conservation of energy). And at that equilibrium flux in = flux out = no net flux at all.
The point to note here is that at equlibrium (which must occur), flux in = flux out. That means that under no circumtances will the temperature ever exceed the input.
But what's funny here is that your "insulator" is, in fact, playing the role of the glass in the greenhouse: insulators prevent convective heat transfer. It can prevent convective heat loss, and help retain latent heat, but it won't raise your temperature above that of the input.
And none of that requires any "radiative forcing". We already have other principles of physics which explain it quite adequately.
Here is another scenario: imagine instead that your interior ball is a bit of an insulator, and that your outside blanket is both a perfect conductor of heat and absorbs all the incoming radiation. (Another unrealistic scenario, since a perfect conductor is almost as unlikely as a perfect insulator.) Assume also that your "blanket" occupies a respectable percentage of the overall outside diameter (i.e., it's thick in proportion to the diameter of your ball).
In that case, it is possible for the surface of your ball to be warmer than the external surface of your blanket, for the simple reason that the surface area is much smaller. So the W / m^2 * s (note the m^2 component) impinging on the surface of your "blanket" is being "perfectly" transferred convectively to your ball surface, which has far fewer m^2 to do the absorbing.
This is another unrealistic scenario because there are no perfect conductors. It is also not representative of Earth because our atmosphere is pretty thin compared to overall diameter. But again the point is: even though the surface temperature is higher than the incoming flux at the outside of the atmosphere, at the absorbing outside surface it is still true that flux in = flux out.
"Given the assumptions of a perfect insulator and constant energy input, what is the limiting temperature? What happens to energy conservation when that temperature limit is reached? "
And equilibrium, the "limiting temperature", assuming a black body, is the temperature that corresponds to radiating the same amount of energy as the input. Anything else is nonsensical.
And therefore, (despite your semantic nitpicking). If it is treated as a black body in regard to emissivity and absorptivity, it cannot radiate at a temperature greater than the input. Furthermore, if it is a "gray body" (as are most things in the real word), the differences in emissivity and absorptivity can be accounted for.
There are two things to note about this:
(1) It was an explanation for laymen. While he might have chosen his words better it was not intended to be a rigorous proof.
(2) The POINT being made by the author is that the "radiative forcing" model fails, because the "true greenhouse effect" model -- i.e., the one that retains heat due to limits on convection -- by itself adequately explains the actual observed temperature.
"Google Glass should have no ability to recognize anyone that does not wish to be recognized. Nothing more should be said, and a class action law suit should remedy the problem. The US Constitution provides me an amount of privacy, and this would remove my privacy."
In my opinion, the only reasonable way to ensure this is to make ALL these privacy intrusions "opt-in" only. By law if necessary (and I think it will probably be necessary.)
If somebody wants to be recognized, let them opt in. Everyone else should be excluded. And you should be able to remove your name from the opt-in list at any time.
"What is left is the rise in carbon and other GHGs we are filling our thin gas envelope with."
There are LOTS of things "left". In fact there are so many variables, creating so much "noise", than any "signal" from AGW has been extremely difficult to detect (and indeed, might not even exist).
The Exxon argument is a straw-man. We know that burning fuel adds heat to the environment completely aside from any "GHG" forcing. One is not evidence of the other.
"A value of 0.24 W mâ'2 solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is cur- rently considered to be more appropriate. Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SCârelated surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes."
A few things should be noted here.
First, they mention the theory of AGW "radiative" forcing, which as I stated earlier is probably myth, according to physicists and experts in radiative heat transfer.
Second, they explicitly acknowledge the presence of the Maunder Minimum, which other climate scientists in the past have been loathe to admit, and indeed have taken pains to deny.
"They aren't saying that the climate is not affected by changes in solar radiation."
That's what they're saying. But they're offering absolutely nothing new here. This is merely a review of others' past (perhaps too long past) work.
What they do say (section 6.4, "climate change", which is their conclusive paragraph) is:
"Extensive climate model studies have indicated that the models can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic forcing is included, in addition to the solar and volcanic forcings [IPCC, 2007]. The change in solar radiative forcing since 1750 was estimated..."
Here is a plain English translation. (This bit is pretty important.)
"Climate model studies by other people can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic radiative forcing is included."
This paper actually claims no new evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (CO2 AGW) is actually occurring. Their own statements (their own concluding paragraph above if you read the whole thing) says that they are relying on past studies to come to that conclusion. Other people concluded that. And they cite as a reference, an old IPCC report. The newer IPCC report is much toned down from the 2007 version they cite.
Not much to see here, and certainly nothing new, by their own admission. Move along now.
I should also point out that the entire concept of "radiative forcing" this is based on was refuted a few years ago, and so far that refutation has not been successfully challenged.
"Get a device with a big enough screen, and use the desktop version of the internet."
I would not have worded it the same way you did, but I agree.
The reason mobile versions of web sites suck, is because mobile devices suck.
They're okay for what they are. But there are reasons why books and newspapers (for hundreds-of-years-old classic examples) aren't printed on 2.5" x 4" paper. And that reason is: it is just plain not enough room to convey information well via the printed word. You can still fit it in if you make the print tiny, but then it's unreadable by half the population.
Period. End of story. Granted, some sites could do better, but you aren't going to change the basic, underlying problem.
Get a device with a big enough screen, and the internet isn't painful anymore. It's that simple.
While Jane Q. Public is obviously a pseudonym, I can (and shall) use any pseudonym I want, when and how I want. As for this other person you think I am: I find that pretty laughable, but almost certainly not for any reasons you think.
"Why do any of these require a technological solution? AFAICT these terms are still perfectly applicable to a brochure or a paragraph."
A brochure does not "adapt" itself to the individual needs of patients and caregivers. Unless, of course, they meant something like 100,000 different brochures, because otherwise there is no way it could cover all the information listed in the requirements.
". Feel free to point out the parts that require an advanced artificial intelligence system instead of a properly targeted brochure or pamphlet:"
Why should I, when TFA already did? It's right there: "engage patients, caregivers in informed decision making...", "present up-to-date clinical evidence in a form and manner... can be adapted for patients, caregivers..."
Etc. These points were already made in TFA. Asking me to repeat them serves no purpose. But since we're repeating things here anyway, I will point out that even some human doctors I have known did not effectively do these things. Asking a for a computer program to do them is a pretty tall order.
"Couldn't deduping of files work if they add a cryptographic hash of the file?"
Just off the top of my head, that would seem to work fine.
But (apparently) that isn't what they were doing. If they were, I would not think they'd have any reason to apologize to their customers and "change their practices".
On second thought, even de-duping via cryptographic hash could be problematic. You could see who has the same files, and when. This could reveal an awful lot of information about people.
And I will amend the previous comment to summarize EXACTLY what went on here:
I used the unfortunate phrase "went missing". I should have written "was perceived to be missing". I recognized this and corrected myself.
But the facts, according to both EAU and the Met Office and New Scientist magazine -- which I firmly established later with the citations I provided above -- are these:
(1) Data from a full 5113 weather stations used in CRU statistics were not available to others at the time. The claimed reason the data was not available, which I have no reason to doubt, was that it was proprietary information from Meteorological Services that provided the information to EAU and CRU on the condition of confidentiality.
(2) According to EAU's own statements, (which I showed you and which are still online), this "raw" data was not kept by EAU. They only preserved data that had already been manipulated. They claimed storage space was the reason. (Which may be true but I don't know and I don't care.)
(2) Because of the stink that many people raised over the unavailability of this data, the Met Office (and possibly EAU as well) decided to negotiate with those sources so the data could be released. It even released some of the information in spite of the objections of the sources (Trinidad and Tobago). Poland held out, and flatly refused to release data.
(3) The result of all this was that the so-called "missing" data was released by the Met Office... some time after the release of the other HadCRUT data. (More specifically, in July of 2011.)
Now... I don't know where you think there is a "lie" in any of this, considering that I showed you statements from EAU and the Met Office that say these things, and a link to a New Scientist article that further backs them up. But I did not assert, anywhere in this thread, that CRU or EAU were "deliberately withholding" this information from others. I only stated that it was not available.
Q.E.D.
So if there is any "hole" here, it is on your side. I haven't the foggiest idea what this stuff is you're blathering on about.
I have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I mentioned that some data was "not available" at first. Then I proved it. (It's straight from the Met Office's own website, and I cited another reliable source as well.)
I no nothing of this "hole" you refer to or any of those other things you're ranting about.
"Your continued attempts to smear CRU while refusing to retract your latest misinformation are noted. Since you and Lonny Eachus keep spreading misinformation which threatens the future of our civilization, I have no choice but to keep debunking you and Lonny Eachus. Stay tuned."
WTF are you talking about? I did no such thing.
I WROTE EARLIER, as others can clearly read for themselves, that I was NOT accusing them of "withholding" data. What I wrote was that it was not available, but I did not -- even once -- claim in this exchange that it was being "withheld" on purpose.
Your repeated accusations that I have done things that I have in fact provably NOT done is exactly WHY I thought -- and still think -- you're such a flaming, large-bore asshole. And the fact that you do it whenever somebody shows you to be wrong amplifies my opinion manyfold.
"Deduping should never actually work if the files were store with unique encryption keys."
Yes, this is correct.
"On personal stuff, multiple files that are bit-for-bit identical (such as THIS GUY's Experiment you can see where it might be possible, but perfectly innocent."
And this is correct, as well. But what they were actually doing was the former, not the latter. Their "end to end encryption" promise was simply and blatantly false.
"It looks to me like his interpretation of the law is extremely ridiculous."
You're pulling only part of what he wrote, out of context. He also quoted several other sections that referenced (1), and described some of the other things it must do... greatly expanding on that one paragraph.
Having said that, I agree that he doesn't say much of anything that hasn't already been said. His analogy with the Chinese wheelbarrow is certainly interesting (and rather funny, really). But I think all of his points were made before in The Mythical Man-Month and other writings.
Slashdot Mirror
"The references were utter nonsense that defied basic physics with silly hand waving arguments. "
Sorry. YOU are the one doing the hand-waving here. Can you refute Latour's math or not? If not, your own claim that it is "hand waving" is nothing but hand-waving.
You don't get to dismiss a scientific argument by simply disagreeing with it and calling it hand-waving. You must refute it or concede the point. Otherwise you lose the debate.
Anthony Watts of WUWT, Roy Spencer, and others have tried to refute Latour's arguments, and even performed some experiments to test it. As it turns out, the experiments were ill-conceived and did not test what they thought they were testing.
Those are just two examples. But the point is: nobody has yet successfully refuted Latour's science. And you don't get to dismiss it just because you don't like it.
"Since JQP's erroneous comments were not moderated into oblivion, correcting their spread of grossly unscientific misinformation which cast aspersions on the fine Nature article is about as far from nit-picking as one can get. "
I have provided evidence that you are wrong. You have provided NO evidence that I am wrong. All you've done is name-calling (things like "grossly unscientific misinformation"). Guess what, man? Your saying so doesn't make it so.
It's all about evidence. I have it, you don't. If you want to present some, I'd be happy to look at it. But until then, you have no argument.
"What is the limiting temperature of a perfectly insulated box with a constant input of energy? "
Your question is ambiguous. The temperature where? At the surface of the box, or at the external surface of the insulation? (The external surface of the box and internal surface of the insulation will be the same.) Where is your energy source? Is it external or internal? Is your box and insulation surrounded by vacuum? Etc. etc. etc. This question is too vague and assumes far too many things.
You will have to define your problem better. It's far too vague, and it doesn't resemble Earth at all.
Of course this little mind game is an impossible situation, since there is no such thing as a perfect insulator. In a perfect insulator, there can be no convective heat transfer (that's what an insulator does: it prevents convective heat transfer), and if it is transparent to the radiation at hand, there will be no radiative heat transfer either. So it makes no sense to even discuss the "temperature" of the insulation because there is none: no radiation whatsoever. It could neither absorb radiation or give any off.
But in a more realistic scenario (no perfect insulator), as explained in excruciating detail in the pdf I linked to before:
According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the surface of your sphere (which is what is primarily absorbing and re-radiating your input) will never exceed the radiative temperature of the input. I.e., at equilibrium there is no "flux" or net heat transfer (W/m^2 * s incoming = W/m^2 * s outgoing, net flux is zero) at that surface. There are only 2 other possibilities: the temperature would go up until it outshone the rest of the universe, or it would cool down to zero. But those things simply do not happen: there must be an equilibrium (conservation of energy). And at that equilibrium flux in = flux out = no net flux at all.
The point to note here is that at equlibrium (which must occur), flux in = flux out. That means that under no circumtances will the temperature ever exceed the input.
But what's funny here is that your "insulator" is, in fact, playing the role of the glass in the greenhouse: insulators prevent convective heat transfer. It can prevent convective heat loss, and help retain latent heat, but it won't raise your temperature above that of the input.
And none of that requires any "radiative forcing". We already have other principles of physics which explain it quite adequately.
Here is another scenario: imagine instead that your interior ball is a bit of an insulator, and that your outside blanket is both a perfect conductor of heat and absorbs all the incoming radiation. (Another unrealistic scenario, since a perfect conductor is almost as unlikely as a perfect insulator.) Assume also that your "blanket" occupies a respectable percentage of the overall outside diameter (i.e., it's thick in proportion to the diameter of your ball).
In that case, it is possible for the surface of your ball to be warmer than the external surface of your blanket, for the simple reason that the surface area is much smaller. So the W / m^2 * s (note the m^2 component) impinging on the surface of your "blanket" is being "perfectly" transferred convectively to your ball surface, which has far fewer m^2 to do the absorbing.
This is another unrealistic scenario because there are no perfect conductors. It is also not representative of Earth because our atmosphere is pretty thin compared to overall diameter. But again the point is: even though the surface temperature is higher than the incoming flux at the outside of the atmosphere, at the absorbing outside surface it is still true that flux in = flux out.
"Given the assumptions of a perfect insulator and constant energy input, what is the limiting temperature? What happens to energy conservation when that temperature limit is reached? "
And equilibrium, the "limiting temperature", assuming a black body, is the temperature that corresponds to radiating the same amount of energy as the input. Anything else is nonsensical.
And therefore, (despite your semantic nitpicking). If it is treated as a black body in regard to emissivity and absorptivity, it cannot radiate at a temperature greater than the input. Furthermore, if it is a "gray body" (as are most things in the real word), the differences in emissivity and absorptivity can be accounted for.
There are two things to note about this:
(1) It was an explanation for laymen. While he might have chosen his words better it was not intended to be a rigorous proof. (2) The POINT being made by the author is that the "radiative forcing" model fails, because the "true greenhouse effect" model -- i.e., the one that retains heat due to limits on convection -- by itself adequately explains the actual observed temperature.
"Google Glass should have no ability to recognize anyone that does not wish to be recognized. Nothing more should be said, and a class action law suit should remedy the problem. The US Constitution provides me an amount of privacy, and this would remove my privacy."
In my opinion, the only reasonable way to ensure this is to make ALL these privacy intrusions "opt-in" only. By law if necessary (and I think it will probably be necessary.)
If somebody wants to be recognized, let them opt in. Everyone else should be excluded. And you should be able to remove your name from the opt-in list at any time.
Mod parent Flarebait.
I wanna see a diesel-fueled Flash Gordon rocket go to Proxima Centauri. (Because... well... its proximal.)
"What is left is the rise in carbon and other GHGs we are filling our thin gas envelope with."
There are LOTS of things "left". In fact there are so many variables, creating so much "noise", than any "signal" from AGW has been extremely difficult to detect (and indeed, might not even exist).
The Exxon argument is a straw-man. We know that burning fuel adds heat to the environment completely aside from any "GHG" forcing. One is not evidence of the other.
Below.
There really is a simple solution for that. And it isn't eliminating "width=" attributes.
It's making a simple media query, then using "width=100%".
Unless you're using a messed-up browser, or doing your media query wrong, the HR will always be the screen width.
Granted, though, lots of people try to do clever things with containing DIVs and the like, that won't let this work. I agree.
As I wrote above, some sites can do better. But no matter what you do, internet on a phone is going to suck, to some degree.
And one more. Apologies for the multiple posts. Re: the argument about "radiative forcing" in atmospheric gases.
Arguments refuting this idea are available HERE and HERE (pdf).
Crap. I must be tired. Correction:
Not Maunder Minimum. They have not (usually) denied that nearly as much as they have the Medieval Warm Period.
My other post should have been more complete.
They also say:
"A value of 0.24 W mâ'2 solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is cur- rently considered to be more appropriate. Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SCârelated surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes."
A few things should be noted here.
First, they mention the theory of AGW "radiative" forcing, which as I stated earlier is probably myth, according to physicists and experts in radiative heat transfer.
Second, they explicitly acknowledge the presence of the Maunder Minimum, which other climate scientists in the past have been loathe to admit, and indeed have taken pains to deny.
"They aren't saying that the climate is not affected by changes in solar radiation."
That's what they're saying. But they're offering absolutely nothing new here. This is merely a review of others' past (perhaps too long past) work.
What they do say (section 6.4, "climate change", which is their conclusive paragraph) is:
"Extensive climate model studies have indicated that the models can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic forcing is included, in addition to the solar and volcanic forcings [IPCC, 2007]. The change in solar radiative forcing since 1750 was estimated..."
Here is a plain English translation. (This bit is pretty important.)
"Climate model studies by other people can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic radiative forcing is included."
This paper actually claims no new evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (CO2 AGW) is actually occurring. Their own statements (their own concluding paragraph above if you read the whole thing) says that they are relying on past studies to come to that conclusion. Other people concluded that. And they cite as a reference, an old IPCC report. The newer IPCC report is much toned down from the 2007 version they cite.
Not much to see here, and certainly nothing new, by their own admission. Move along now.
I should also point out that the entire concept of "radiative forcing" this is based on was refuted a few years ago, and so far that refutation has not been successfully challenged.
"Get a device with a big enough screen, and use the desktop version of the internet."
I would not have worded it the same way you did, but I agree.
The reason mobile versions of web sites suck, is because mobile devices suck.
They're okay for what they are. But there are reasons why books and newspapers (for hundreds-of-years-old classic examples) aren't printed on 2.5" x 4" paper. And that reason is: it is just plain not enough room to convey information well via the printed word. You can still fit it in if you make the print tiny, but then it's unreadable by half the population.
Period. End of story. Granted, some sites could do better, but you aren't going to change the basic, underlying problem.
Get a device with a big enough screen, and the internet isn't painful anymore. It's that simple.
What about all the other "tribes"? (And of course, few are mutually exclusive, so you have all the combinations, too.)
Stalker, geeker, tweaker, gangbanger, bible thumper, petitioner, voter, and dentist?
Pollster, telemarketer, fraudster, newscaster.
And frog.
And one more thing:
While Jane Q. Public is obviously a pseudonym, I can (and shall) use any pseudonym I want, when and how I want. As for this other person you think I am: I find that pretty laughable, but almost certainly not for any reasons you think.
"Why do any of these require a technological solution? AFAICT these terms are still perfectly applicable to a brochure or a paragraph."
A brochure does not "adapt" itself to the individual needs of patients and caregivers. Unless, of course, they meant something like 100,000 different brochures, because otherwise there is no way it could cover all the information listed in the requirements.
". Feel free to point out the parts that require an advanced artificial intelligence system instead of a properly targeted brochure or pamphlet:"
Why should I, when TFA already did? It's right there: "engage patients, caregivers in informed decision making...", "present up-to-date clinical evidence in a form and manner... can be adapted for patients, caregivers..."
Etc. These points were already made in TFA. Asking me to repeat them serves no purpose. But since we're repeating things here anyway, I will point out that even some human doctors I have known did not effectively do these things. Asking a for a computer program to do them is a pretty tall order.
"Couldn't deduping of files work if they add a cryptographic hash of the file?"
Just off the top of my head, that would seem to work fine.
But (apparently) that isn't what they were doing. If they were, I would not think they'd have any reason to apologize to their customers and "change their practices".
On second thought, even de-duping via cryptographic hash could be problematic. You could see who has the same files, and when. This could reveal an awful lot of information about people.
Meh. Numbering got off during editing. Points should have been numbered 1 through 4. And in the prior comment "no" should have been "know".
And I will amend the previous comment to summarize EXACTLY what went on here:
I used the unfortunate phrase "went missing". I should have written "was perceived to be missing". I recognized this and corrected myself.
But the facts, according to both EAU and the Met Office and New Scientist magazine -- which I firmly established later with the citations I provided above -- are these:
(1) Data from a full 5113 weather stations used in CRU statistics were not available to others at the time. The claimed reason the data was not available, which I have no reason to doubt, was that it was proprietary information from Meteorological Services that provided the information to EAU and CRU on the condition of confidentiality.
(2) According to EAU's own statements, (which I showed you and which are still online), this "raw" data was not kept by EAU. They only preserved data that had already been manipulated. They claimed storage space was the reason. (Which may be true but I don't know and I don't care.)
(2) Because of the stink that many people raised over the unavailability of this data, the Met Office (and possibly EAU as well) decided to negotiate with those sources so the data could be released. It even released some of the information in spite of the objections of the sources (Trinidad and Tobago). Poland held out, and flatly refused to release data.
(3) The result of all this was that the so-called "missing" data was released by the Met Office... some time after the release of the other HadCRUT data. (More specifically, in July of 2011.)
Now... I don't know where you think there is a "lie" in any of this, considering that I showed you statements from EAU and the Met Office that say these things, and a link to a New Scientist article that further backs them up. But I did not assert, anywhere in this thread, that CRU or EAU were "deliberately withholding" this information from others. I only stated that it was not available.
Q.E.D.
So if there is any "hole" here, it is on your side. I haven't the foggiest idea what this stuff is you're blathering on about.
I have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I mentioned that some data was "not available" at first. Then I proved it. (It's straight from the Met Office's own website, and I cited another reliable source as well.)
I no nothing of this "hole" you refer to or any of those other things you're ranting about.
"Your continued attempts to smear CRU while refusing to retract your latest misinformation are noted. Since you and Lonny Eachus keep spreading misinformation which threatens the future of our civilization, I have no choice but to keep debunking you and Lonny Eachus. Stay tuned."
WTF are you talking about? I did no such thing.
I WROTE EARLIER, as others can clearly read for themselves, that I was NOT accusing them of "withholding" data. What I wrote was that it was not available, but I did not -- even once -- claim in this exchange that it was being "withheld" on purpose.
Your repeated accusations that I have done things that I have in fact provably NOT done is exactly WHY I thought -- and still think -- you're such a flaming, large-bore asshole. And the fact that you do it whenever somebody shows you to be wrong amplifies my opinion manyfold.
"Deduping should never actually work if the files were store with unique encryption keys."
Yes, this is correct.
"On personal stuff, multiple files that are bit-for-bit identical (such as THIS GUY's Experiment you can see where it might be possible, but perfectly innocent."
And this is correct, as well. But what they were actually doing was the former, not the latter. Their "end to end encryption" promise was simply and blatantly false.
"It looks to me like his interpretation of the law is extremely ridiculous."
You're pulling only part of what he wrote, out of context. He also quoted several other sections that referenced (1), and described some of the other things it must do... greatly expanding on that one paragraph.
Having said that, I agree that he doesn't say much of anything that hasn't already been said. His analogy with the Chinese wheelbarrow is certainly interesting (and rather funny, really). But I think all of his points were made before in The Mythical Man-Month and other writings.