As studies get expanded, results get more precise. Some policies can be drawn from older studies and are available from an early date, but other policy recommendations require further studies. What's so difficult to understand about that?

IPCC uses a wide range of studies to arrive at policy recommendations, not one study from a single institution such as the CRU, and beyond that, I've already mentioned that the CRU results weren't invalidated by any investigation. So what is it that you're arguing for here? Either including the CRU results (if they're valid) or excluding them (if they aren't) won't change anything.

I "seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad"? I'm not sure I understand that, but I'm simply arguing that if claims that make something look bad are later found to be invalid, there's no point in perpetuating them. Had those claims been vindicated, that obviously would have been a reason for taking steps against the CRU. You still haven't said what I'm "skirting". We've already concluded that the claims about CRU were found to be unfounded, what else is there to discuss?

You can suspect anything about anyone. That's no reason to take action before the truth is found out. Regarding "suspicions", see below.

Except they weren't. Climate change deniers don't need any reason for mistrust. Even with full transparency, they'd still throw accusations at climate scientists that they're conning people to get grants. They're doing that all the time. They were doing that even before the CRU "affair". So that wouldn't prevent the problem in the first place

It also doesn't make sense to say "even to computers at all" since computer science as such isn't really about computers. So I would have thought that there isn't any reason why they should be mentioned in the first place.

The information wasn't available 25 years ago for the simple reason that this was a different line of research that would happen in the future. I'm sure there will also be a lot of research going on 15 years from now but that doesn't mean we can't draw any conclusions now.

That is irrelevant since nobody forces you to shape public law with CRU's research either. You're perfectly free to completely ignore CRU even exists, and the relevant scientific landscape won't change.

If you're calling accepted research performed by multiple independent parties over many decades as "religion", it's obvious 1) where you stand and 2) that any reasonable discussion with you is out of question. Is evolution "a religion"? Is general relativity "a religion"? What kind of science isn't "a religion" to you?

The topic you raised was people (those "skeptics" you talked of) unqualified to make judgments on that affair because they lack either the necessary knowledge, intellect, or both. (And if not, pray tell, what else was the topic?)

That's like arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves the prosecutor's point. It's utter rubbish.

I'm sure gravity would like a word with you.

It might have been a typical Han Solo landing, though.

You may think so, but for example, this document claims (on page 11) that there's a morning peak and an evening peak, it says nothing about a night peak.

Except that as I have demonstrated, that is a logically wrong conclusion to make.

Without semantics, sentences are meaningless, even grammatically correct ones. You can't NOT use semantics in communication. I'm not sure what your point is there.

Researchers don't often print or show or present everything. Especially if ongoing research is involved. The Rosetta probe photos, for example, also have a period in which they're available only to the PI's team so that someone else wouldn't steal their thunder before they publish. There's nothing inappropriate about that, especially if you have dozens of lines of independent research about the same going on in different places.

Nothing was "withheld" or "shrouded by secrecy" when I made my decision a quarter century ago. ANYONE could have done so at that point. So how is it relevant?

You don't care about people doing flawed reasoning? How can we have any serious discussion on any topic, then?

Oops! I misread your comment. I thought $0.19/kWh was unsubsidized prices, not subsidies themselves. Well, Fraunhofer predicts for 2030 the fall of German offshore wind LCOE to $0.13/kWh or so. Either the technology needs development, or in the UK, there are different conditions, or both. That it is quite expensive at the moment not just in the UK is beyond dispute.

Interesting, but the first link shows that CRU scientists would be lousy lawyers, and the second is unrelated to CRU completely. And now for a dose of facts about the CRU affair:

The British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee investigated the matter and concluded: "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity'."

The Independent Climate Change Email Review team investigated the matter and concluded: "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."

Lord Oxburgh’s independent panel investigated the matter and found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever"

The US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the matter and stated that they "reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions."

And so on and so on. Should I continue? More or less, the worst thing anyone in possession of facts has to say about the CRU scientists is that they suck at communicating. Bummer, but not an uncommon one.

No, I'm not a global warming pusher, CO2 is a global warming pusher. I have no interest in contributing to global warming.

No, it isn't. It's about you and presumably some other people apparently being unable to grasp basic principles of reasoning. Even if if you found out evidence of gross academic misconduct having happened within CRU (which didn't happen), it still wouldn't prove anything about global warming (or the lack of it). If you find flaws in a study saying "P", it doesn't mean you've proven "not P". All you have at that moment is an empty set of proven claims. And if you have ten independent studies of global warming, all of them saying the Earth is warming, every study having independent data, research, and people involved, and one of the people or teams is found to have made anything invalidating that one study - anything from flawed methodology through measurement errors to even outright scientific fraud, it demonstrates nothing about those other studies. All it demonstrates is that from the one flawed study in question, no conclusion can be made about the subject in either direction. Arguing otherwise would be an argument from fallacy, which is a formal fallacy in its own right.

I have no idea what the CRU has to do with that. I accepted global warming as a fact a quarter century ago. The reason was that the research of many people at that time and before that said it was happening. There was no reason to think otherwise. There isn't any reason to think otherwise now, and there hasn't been any reason in between the two points in time. How anything that happened at one scientific institution at one point in time - beyond some ground-breaking discovery (which didn't happen, naturally) explaining how and why everyone else was wrong - could have invalidated the work of many different scientists from countries all over the world eludes me. Not to mention that to my knowledge, nothing significantly improper was demonstrated to have happened in the institution you mentioned, despite multiple investigations.

What I had in mind is what silly conditions will be pushed by people in power who don't like the conclusions of some studies.

At what time? What refusals? What are you talking about? Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896! Publically, of course. You're saying that somebody has been hiding some data for a century?

I think you missed the part where PV cells, being solid-state devices, kind of tend to be maintenance-free. When a Swedish insular PV plant from the mid-80's was recently decommissioned, they found that one (1!) of the twenty panels provided degraded output because of a failure of one of its cells, and the remaining nineteen provided their factory-rated output (!) 25 years (!!) after having been put in place. And those were ancient modules, not the modern ones. Back then, they didn't even have a 25 years warranty like today, only had a 10 year one or something like that. At that point, who the hell cares if you lose 60% in stored energy? Especially if only a part of the output gets stored and the rest is simply used as is. If you don't have to pamper them the way mechanical parts need to be pampered, just use twice as many panels and stop caring. Duh!

Actually, it is my understanding that the Flight 447 airplane's autopilot handled the sensor malfunction just fine: it switched to manual. It was the pilots who botched the rest. Presumably, a self-driving car would do the same.

Not full. And it happens in the morning. And eclipses can be predicted. I think Germans should just turn off their TVs and computers and whatever and just go watch the astronomical wonder.

Synthetic gas? Not to mention that night has traditionally been the less-demanding period.