Climategate?

BluePlanet

There are some good videos debunking the deniers on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/0/w9SGw75pVas

This guy's channel has about 30 videos on global warming and they seem particularly catered to debunking right-wing myths.

Worth a look.

Another good website is this one:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Some good articles detailing some of the mistakes GW skeptics make in their own "research" (or lack of).

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100224b.html

Met office to provide an improved dataset to the public.

The Met Office, as the United Kingdom’s representative to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), has proposed a programme to deliver a new global temperature data set.

This initiative will augment, not replace, the current temperature data sets and involve work across the international meteorological community. The proposed data set will provide information on changing extremes and regional variability, and so strengthen decisions on adapting to climate change.

This will require surface temperature data sets with more detail than the current monthly averaged temperatures. Data will be available at daily, or even finer timescales, using methods that are fully peer reviewed and open to scrutiny — providing independent assessments of surface temperature.

The new analysis will add to, and refine, the existing data sets which all show global and continental-scale multi-decadal trends of increasing temperatures, following on from the pioneering work of the University of East Anglia (UEA) over the last 30 years

Mozart1986

BluePlanet wrote: »

There are some good videos debunking the deniers on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/0/w9SGw75pVas

This guy's channel has about 30 videos on global warming and they seem particularly catered to debunking right-wing myths.

Worth a look.

Another good website is this one:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Some good articles detailing some of the mistakes GW skeptics make in their own "research" (or lack of).

According to some of our "impartial" mods, its not acceptable to post videos/graphs/etc without any actual point or discussion around them. Its seems that that rule only applies to us heretics. But after watching the first few videos its clear that there is absolutely nothing new on these videos. The only way you could believe most of the points made on them to be true is if you've decided to believe them and completely ignore the weight of evidence against them.

Mozart1986

Sandvich wrote: »

You don't come off as being interested in having a mature debate, just reciting Daily Mail headlines. Every time one of your points or ad hominems is shot down, you just carry on as if nothing happens - the same seems to be true of the "Climategate" followers in general. If you actually stuck to the science, we might get somewhere in a discussion.

I'd like to introduce you to djpbarry, it seems you haven't met, and yet you are describing him with immense precision;)

Of course its easy to be extreme and brash with our statements, but thats a symptom of being on a web forum and not of a particular position one holds. In my view, the majority of the considered, reasonable arguments are coming from the "skeptical" side, as opposed to the almost religious adherence to the "scientific consensus", as if its a credible argument. The scientific consensus is based on scientists research projects. Those research projects are based on data and theses from other scientific institutions. But from the perspectives of the scientists in other fields, the data sets of the UEA et al are accepted and authority is defered. But the e-mails have shown that this institution has had a clear bias for years. They believe something to be true, and they believe the political implications of that thing, should it be true, to be immense and imminent. Therefore, they must "prove" that thing asap, and proof need only be defined by scientific consensus. But the whole circle of pathology unravels with the e-mails because the scientists who supposedly consent cannot base their studies on such data. Unfortunately, such a weight of scientific research is based upon that data, that it could mean a scientific "sizemic shift", which would mean foregoing massive amounts of funds, so the "consent" remains, however hollow and meaningless. Fortunately, the nature of science and the scientific method means that scientists will be the first to give up the facade. But, as always happens in scientific movements, such a shift will be resisted vehemently until dam bursts and truth is, once again, aloud to flow.

P.S. I am not funded by Exxon Mobile or any other right-wing agenda. Its funny how the AGW is soooooo wedded to a left-wing agenda that they can't even imagine an opposition that isn't framed by the left/right ideological dipole. NEWS-FLASH! This discussion does not revolve around that dipole, it revolves around the uncertain and extremely complex science of climate and the credible accusation of corruption and malpractice in a major climatological institution.

Macha

Mozart1986 wrote: »

According to some of our "impartial" mods, its not acceptable to post videos/graphs/etc without any actual point or discussion around them. Its seems that that rule only applies to us heretics.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

I'd like to introduce you to djpbarry, it seems you haven't met, and yet you are describing him with immense precision;)

Mozart1986, locate the report button and use it if you have a problem with moderation. In-thread discussion of moderation is not tolerated.

Personal attacks on other posters are also not allowed.

Turtwig

But the e-mails have shown that this institution has had a clear bias for years. They believe something to be true, and they believe the political implications of that thing, should it be true, to be immense and imminent. Therefore, they must "prove" that thing asap, and proof need only be defined by scientific consensus. But the whole circle of pathology unravels with the e-mails because the scientists who supposedly consent cannot base their studies on such data.

I've yet to read an email that actually demonstrates what you claim. So perhaps you would be kind to show me one?

I did however find this one.

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
-- when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.

Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.

Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.

The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents ("after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling"). People who endorse your letter will
NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.

When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.

That (if it's not already clear) was written to a lefty ideologist environmentalist.

As for the issue of the videos, pick one by Greenman and we'll discuss how it goes against all the evidence.

Oh and for the record. I posted videos once before by both Potholer54 (someone I consider more imparitial than Greenman) and Greenman, and the moderators deleted them. So I'd say it's more a case of them not having time and having a life.

Mozart1986

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh and for the record. I posted videos once before by both Potholer54 (someone I consider more imparitial than Greenman) and Greenman, and the moderators deleted them. So I'd say it's more a case of them not having time and having a life.

Thats funny, because they were pretty quick to reprimand me (today and other times), and not the person I quoted, for doing exactly the same thing. Maybe they did delete your videos, but they didn't delete his/hers, and yet were onto me in a flash. A life, you say?

Turtwig

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Thats funny, because they were pretty quick to reprimand me (today and other times), and not the person I quoted, for doing exactly the same thing. Maybe they did delete your videos, but they didn't delete his/hers, and yet were onto me in a flash. A life, you say?

Mine was deleted within 5 minutes of posting. And I'd written a fair bit of text too. The videos were all about the actual science behind climate change (including genuine skepticism - which, thankfully, isn't being overshadowed or ignored by the pseudo nonsense being spouted by many). The mods deleted them because I broke the rule that you mentioned. In any case, Blue Planet's post doesn't break that rule by near as much as I did as s/he is merely providing a resource to a persons channel (Not to any specific argument). So I'm afraid you're not going to convince me of moderator bias, given that I consider my neutral to all this and had my post deleted.

Mozart1986

Malty_T wrote: »

I've yet to read an email that actually demonstrates what you claim. So perhaps you would be kind to show me one?

I did however find this one.

That (if it's not already clear) was written to a lefty ideologist environmentalist.

Wow, you are so partial that you must have just accepted that that e-mail exhonerates the UEA without even searching for where it comes from. That was Tom Wigley in 1997 writing to 11 scientists, not some random lefty ideologue, and Wigley retired a few years ago, well before this all blew up. He was extremely moderate in his opinions about the political implications of the theory of AGW, especially in early years. That is well known, and that e-mail says absolutely nothing about Phil Jones' "views" or any of the other players. In fact, what it does show is that there has been, atleast since 1997, left-wing pressure on the whole scientific process, as these "Eleven" were scientists.

Typical!

Macha

Guys, can we move off moderation and back onto the topic at hand?

Mozart1986

Here is Jones getting a grilling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/video-dr-phil-jones-climategate-testimony-at-the-british-house-of-commons/#more-16889

gizmo555

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Here is Jones getting a grilling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/video-dr-phil-jones-climategate-testimony-at-the-british-house-of-commons/#more-16889

“Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”

This says it all, really. An honest scientist would be grateful for someone pointing out errors in data on which his research conclusions relied.

Contrast this, for example, with the academics in Tralee IT who've been in the news this week talking about the research they've been doing into grade inflation in Irish schools and 3rd level institutions. You can be sure there are many in academia who would like to pick holes in their work. Yet, as well as their research papers they have published all the raw data they used, data which had never been collated before in this way and which it took them considerable time and effort to put together. Anyone who wants can check their figures to see if their conclusions stand up. The difference in attitude bdetween them and the CRU couldn't be greater.

http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie

Turtwig

gizmo555 wrote: »

“Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”

This says it all, really. An honest scientist would be grateful for someone pointing out errors in data on which his research conclusions relied.

I agree, but you've missed something vital here. The same thing happens to evolutionary biologists the whole time. It's dishonest PR by anti science folk they want to see the lab notes just so they can criticise them. It doesn't matter how accurate the criticism is, all that's usually wanted is the illusion of debate/criticism to convince local politicians and lay people. A much much better way would be independently check if Jones results can be recreated from just the raw data. If Scientists, were to follow the method of error checking suggested (which at the core sounds nice and appealing) then there is a huge risk of one person making a mistake and no one else spotting it. However, by arriving at the same conclusion through effectively blind means you're actually getting a much more accurate and skeptically independent conclusion - as long as the scientist is honest in making his assertions. If s/he isn't, then there's two distinct possibilities:

1) Only a minority are dishonest and these few dishonesties are insufficient in the long run. The dishonesty of the scientist may never be proven, but the inaccuracy of the science most likely will. Bad science, is usually, always weeded out.

2) The majority are dishonest and all the results are fabricated meaning we have serious conspiracy on our hands.

So, to get back to your original point. An honest scientist would be more grateful if someone supported their work blindy from a different angle than basically rechecked their code and reaffirmed it. What amazed me though was it seems that even Jone's does not get this vital part of the scientific method. It's not standard practice for a very good reason.

Mozart1986

gizmo555 wrote: »

“Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”

This says it all, really. An honest scientist would be grateful for someone pointing out errors in data on which his research conclusions relied.

Contrast this, for example, with the academics in Tralee IT who've been in the news this week talking about the research they've been doing into grade inflation in Irish schools and 3rd level institutions. You can be sure there are many in academia who would like to pick holes in their work. Yet, as well as their research papers they have published all the raw data they used, data which had never been collated before in this way and which it took them considerable time and effort to put together. Anyone who wants can check their figures to see if their conclusions stand up. The difference in attitude bdetween them and the CRU couldn't be greater.

http://www.stopgradeinflation.ie

Thats so correct. I've been talking about that for years, but up until recently all I got was cynicism back. People would always reply with "well its best measurement we have" or something like that. The parallels are actually quite interesting with AGW. After discussing it for a while I realised that the reason people have been so aversed to accepting the issue of grade inflation and is that I was talking to middle-class people who are wedded to the educational system and often got their confidence from their 500+ points or their 1:1s. Actually, academia will be glad of this report. My lecturers have been saying it for years. One maths lecturer I had told us in class that they couldn't teach the same level of maths because they just weren't getting the students with the abilities/work ethic.

The people who hate this report are the ones that did well out of the leaving cert/unversity grading system. Many academics, like Chomsky, hate the idea of grading students, they just don't have the measuring tools/capacity to be accurate. That sounds very like the climatological problem, and the ambiguity about what a good/the best way of measuring is.

What is certain is that in both cases, grade inflation and AGW, the middle-classes are wedded to and emotionally invested in the current way of measuring, and are not willing to accept the idea that they might not be the smartest people in the country, because the leaving cert is a bad measure, and that the seriousness of AGW is exagerated for political purposes,

I am finding it difficult to balance the science with the politics - Jones

because CRU and its computer models are a bad measure.

They keep saying that the leaving cert/climatological methods of computer modelling are the best measurements we have, flawed or not. But thats not why they support them. They support them because they produce the answer that they want to hear. This is a left-wing answer, which they believe in prior to AGW.

To clarify, I am neither right-wing nor left-wing, I'm a philosopher and a pragmatist and don't accept that that dipole is all-encompassing the way most politically motivated people do. I just used it because people on this forum seem to think that people that dispute AGW must be right-wing. The reason they believe this is because they are left-wing, and thus, everyone that opposes them must be right-wing.

Mozart1986

"Bad science, is usually, always weeded out."

Not true. Until bad science is weeded out, its still considered good science. Just because lots of bad science is weeded out, doesn't mean there isn't more lurking and reinforced by people's deference of authority.

The rest of your post is so deluded it makes the baby Jesus cry:(

Of course they reached the same conclusions, when they "homogenise" the results. The reason Jones' "did not get" this was that he knew that he'd be laughed out of the room if he tried to pull that nonsense.

gizmo555

Malty_T wrote: »

I agree, but you've missed something vital here. The same thing happens to evolutionary biologists the whole time. It's dishonest PR by anti science folk they want to see the lab notes just so they can criticise them.

I don't believe I'm missing anything at all. If the raw data were made available then other scientists would have the opportunity of confirming and supporting Jones's findings, assuming they are in fact reproducible. If they're not, they belong here.

I concur with the Institute of Physics' view expressed in its submission to the "Climategate" inquiry:

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Mozart1986

gizmo555 wrote: »

I don't believe I'm missing anything at all. If the raw data were made available then other scientists would have the opportunity of confirming and supporting Jones's findings, assuming they are in fact reproducible. If they're not, they belong here.

I concur with the Institute of Physics' view expressed in its submission to the "Climategate" inquiry:

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

As I've said many times before, scientists will be the first to uproot this fraud, long before the popular movement, but then the popular movement will start trying to discredit the "elitist scientists" because they won't confirm their views anymore.

djpbarry

gizmo555 wrote: »

If the raw data were made available...

The raw data is available. For example, individual temperature records from various weather stations around the world can be downloaded from the GISS website. Absolutely anyone is free to compile their very own temperature record, if they wish.

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

What is certain is that in both cases, grade inflation and AGW, the middle-classes are wedded to and emotionally invested in the current way of measuring, and are not willing to accept the idea that they might not be the smartest people in the country, because the leaving cert is a bad measure, and that the seriousness of AGW is exagerated for political purposes...

So you would be of the opinion that “the middle classes” are more likely to express a “belief” in AGW compared to other classes? I’d be very surprised if that were the case, given that the “middle classes” presumably stand to lose more if (hypothetically speaking) efforts were made to curb our emissions.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

...because CRU and its computer models are a bad measure.

And yet they are in close agreement with those at GISS, for example. Just how bad are they, exactly?

Mozart1986 wrote: »

To clarify, I am neither right-wing nor left-wing, I'm a philosopher and a pragmatist and don't accept that that dipole is all-encompassing the way most politically motivated people do. I just used it because people on this forum seem to think that people that dispute AGW must be right-wing.

Do they? Your analysis seems a touch simplistic to me.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Until bad science is weeded out, its still considered good science. Just because lots of bad science is weeded out, doesn't mean there isn't more lurking and reinforced by people's deference of authority.

Forming the pre-conclusion that there is bad science to ‘be weeded out’ is probably not the most balanced approach to any sort of assessment.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Of course they reached the same conclusions, when they "homogenise" the results.

Meaning what exactly? You're suggesting that climate centres the world over are conspiring to produce similarly falsified temperature records?

Mozart1986 wrote: »

As I've said many times before, scientists will be the first to uproot this fraud, long before the popular movement, but then the popular movement will start trying to discredit the "elitist scientists" because they won't confirm their views anymore.

For as long as I can remember, ‘the popular movement’ has been attempting to discredit the so-called “elite scientists”. Exhibit A: this forum.

gizmo555

djpbarry wrote: »

The raw data is available. For example, individual temperature records from various weather stations around the world can be downloaded from the GISS website. Absolutely anyone is free to compile their very own temperature record, if they wish.

But Jones refused to release the data that he had used, because in his own words he felt the requester "wanted to find something wrong with it." Which, of course, is precisely the point.

BluePlanet

Would have loved to hear more specifics.
Probably some over-zealous denier badgering this poor guy to turn over all his data at the drop of a hat, but why should he spend his time doing this?

Is he under some legal compulsion to spend x hours a day spoon feeding trolls?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

The raw data is available. For example, individual temperature records from various weather stations around the world can be downloaded from the GISS website. Absolutely anyone is free to compile their very own temperature record, if they wish.

I actually did that a few weeks ago when the UK metoffice released some weather data, I found that the longer established stations produced horizontal trend lines.

gizmo555

BluePlanet wrote: »

Is he under some legal compulsion to spend x hours a day spoon feeding trolls?

I wouldn't have put it quite that way, but yes, part of the inquiry is into the CRU's alleged failure to respond properly to legitimate requests under freedom of information law.

djpbarry

gizmo555 wrote: »

But Jones refused to release the data that he had used, because in his own words he felt the requester "wanted to find something wrong with it." Which, of course, is precisely the point.

Is it? Surely the point is to validate the results, preferably independently?

BluePlanet

gizmo555 wrote: »

I wouldn't have put it quite that way, but yes, part of the inquiry is into the CRU's alleged failure to respond properly to legitimate requests under freedom of information law.

I thought they were saying that it shouldn't have to take a Freedom of Information request.

gizmo555

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it? Surely the point is to validate the results, preferably independently?

Once again, as the Institute of Physics put it:

The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.

BluePlanet wrote: »

I thought they were saying that it shouldn't have to take a Freedom of Information request.

Well, I would agree it shouldn't. But, to answer your previous question, Jones and the CRU were under a legal compulsion to respond to legitimate FoI requests and it is alleged they didn't and indeed took steps to destroy information to prevent its being released.

Mozart1986

djpbarry wrote: »

So you would be of the opinion that “the middle classes” are more likely to express a “belief” in AGW compared to other classes? I’d be very surprised if that were the case, given that the “middle classes” presumably stand to lose more if (hypothetically speaking) efforts were made to curb our emissions.
And yet they are in close agreement with those at GISS, for example. Just how bad are they, exactly?
Do they? Your analysis seems a touch simplistic to me.
Forming the pre-conclusion that there is bad science to ‘be weeded out’ is probably not the most balanced approach to any sort of assessment.
Meaning what exactly? You're suggesting that climate centres the world over are conspiring to produce similarly falsified temperature records?
For as long as I can remember, ‘the popular movement’ has been attempting to discredit the so-called “elite scientists”. Exhibit A: this forum.

If you think I'm going to engage with you again you're mad.

djpbarry

gizmo555 wrote: »

...Jones and the CRU were under a legal compulsion to respond to legitimate FoI requests and it is alleged they didn't and indeed took steps to destroy information to prevent its being released.

Key word there.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

If you think I'm going to engage with you again you're mad.

Beggin' your pardon - there was me thinking this was a discussion forum.

gizmo555

djpbarry wrote: »

Key word there.

Well, yes, that's why I used it.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record though, and to answer Blueplanet's question yet again, Jones and the CRU were under a legal compulsion to respond to legitimate FoI requests. If they felt that those making the requests were "trolls", well, UK FoI law includes provision for dealing with vexatious requests and as their Information Commissioner puts it in a way which I think is very relevant to this case, "remember that you can also avoid unwanted requests by voluntarily publishing any frequently requested information."

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_repeated_requests_final.pdf

Mozart1986

It seems the only response people can muster here is a question that amounts to repeating a persons assertion with a question mark, and thus forces people to repeat themselves or not engage at all. I don't really call that a discussion, but a discussion does sound like a nice idea:)