or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 2

post #41 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So, the talk of redefining the peer review literature is insignificant?

No, that 'talk' is clearly a joke, because it's impossible for any single scientist to redefine peer-reviewed literature. I thought that that was so obvious it wasn't worth discussing.

Here is the quote from the hacked email again.

Quote:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

So these papers, then. What is the content of these papers?

We're going to go through those quotes one-by-one. What is the content of those papers?
post #42 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No, that 'talk' is clearly a joke, because it's impossible for any single scientist to redefine peer-reviewed literature. I thought that that was so obvious it wasn't worth discussing.

Here is the quote from the hacked email again.



So these papers, then. What is the content of these papers?

We're going to go through those quotes one-by-one. What is the content of those papers?

What is obvious is that you don't know the content of those papers any more than I do, and further investigation into this matter is clearly warranted.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #43 of 3039
The problem is that "science" is all about reproducing someone else's results. That's hard to do when you are hiding your data/code for everyone but your echo chamber.


Quote:
Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.



HIDE THE DECLINE!!!


http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #44 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

If these emails are representative -- if they have really cooked the books/code -- these scientists have set modernity back 50 years. They will have destroyed the credibility of the establishment, and brought outright anarchy on themselves.




Science needs no defense -- we don't argue about the distance of the Earth to the Sun. What the hell is wrong with free inquiry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions




power corrupts--we are realizing that "peer review" has an incestuous relationship, this has happened before, there is a ton of money NOW in grants for climate change, where in the past there was none, the grant money flows by political pressure. by feeding themselves they have pushed their own agenda, but science usually corrects itself, but in this case won't be allowed to, they should all be discredited and all science works should avoid this incestuous selfserving and need more oversight, real independent review. NOT just for climate change, other issues as well this pushes back peoples repect for our science, any science. seeking the truth requires that disenting opinions and other works be supported and the journal has integrity
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #45 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What is obvious is that you don't know the content of those papers any more than I do, and further investigation into this matter is clearly warranted.

YES. EXACTLY.

Neither of us know the content of those papers. So they can't be evidence of any "smoking gun" of any climate change conspiracy (which does not exist, incidentally.)

We don't know the content of those papers. We don't know whether the evidence supports the existence of climate change, or doesn't, or why it's not suitable, or the context in which those findings were made and the paper drafted. We have no idea whether they're even talking about climate change findings or what the hell might be in them. We have an out of context quote designed to discredit reputable, conscientious scientists.

Read the press release. You haven't, have you?

So that's one email down.

Let's discuss another. You choose it. Pick any one you like. Come on.
post #46 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

YES. EXACTLY.

Neither of us know the content of those papers. So they can't be evidence of any "smoking gun" of any climate change conspiracy (which does not exist, incidentally.)

Actually it could be, it just isn't until we know the contents of the papers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

We don't know the content of those papers. We don't know whether the evidence supports the existence of climate change, or doesn't, or why it's not suitable, or the context in which those findings were made and the paper drafted. We have no idea whether they're even talking about climate change findings or what the hell might be in them.

Correct, and until we do know what was in those papers it is premature to draw conclusions in either direction. What we do have is an email excerpt indicating someone's desire to exclude certain papers from publication. Now we should get down to the why.
post #47 of 3039

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #48 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

The problem is that "science" is all about reproducing someone else's results. That's hard to do when you are hiding your data/code for everyone but your echo chamber.






HIDE THE DECLINE!!!


http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/

No climate scientist is hiding anything.

You would need to understand the letter of the law with respect to IP and FOI restrictions that apply across multiple organizations that are legally binding.

Clearly something you have had no experience with, or expertise in.

Science is all about independent validation and verification.

Apply for a research grand, collect your own data and do your own analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

Or collect all the vast amounts of freely available public domain data/code, do your own analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

Or pay for the data from the original sources (NWS etceteras), do your own code development and analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

Science is not about hand holding for the sake of hand holding.

Fortunately, for the most part, contrarians, also known as Denialers, do not engage in peer reviewed science, they make accusations, and ask endless questions of those actually doing the science.

No amount of data/code will satisfy these Denialers, ever, for that is their only porpose, harassment for the sake of harassment. See Birthers.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #49 of 3039
Not to derail or anything, but I can't wait for someone to leak emails and internal memos about what happened (or is happening) with the banking bailout last fall and the "stimulus" this past winter/spring and the health care "reform" going on now.
post #50 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No climate scientist is hiding anything.
...

You'd better hope so.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #51 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Not to derail or anything, but I can't wait for someone to leak emails and internal memos about what happened (or is happening) with the banking bailout last fall and the "stimulus" this past winter/spring and the health care "reform" going on now.

Why bother -- what we already know is too painful to handle. The bankers are gettin' PAID!

Quote:
Borrow at ZERO, then lend long to your citizenry this is as good as it gets!






Seriously, I'd imagine it's much the same: a comfortable paradigm that gets people paid off with grants (**ehem**... commissions) and political power -- all held together with spit, bailing twine, and consensus. Just enough quants and finagled data to keep everyone comfortable -- true until it isn't.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #52 of 3039
"Climate Change is All About Power"

Quote:
A "scientific consensus" is not science. "Consensus" is a political word. Politicians reach "Consensus." Scientists reach "factual conclusions" based on evidence, no matter what the politicians or the opportunists or the true believers want them to reach.
post #53 of 3039
To recap:

Environmentalism as Religion

Quote:
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...aseligion.html

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Quote:
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.

The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #54 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No climate scientist is hiding anything.

Suffering from a little denial yourself I see.

Quote:
You would need to understand the letter of the law with respect to IP and FOI restrictions that apply across multiple organizations that are legally binding.

The claim has never been in any of thse FOI requests that the information was protected as IP, or that release was contrary to the procedures of the organization, body or country associated with it. Rather the opposite was true and the scientists in question were discussing how they could thwart such requests. The claim was made that they data would be deleted before being shared.

Quote:
Clearly something you have had no experience with, or expertise in.

Clearly you haven't read any of these emails.

Quote:
Science is all about independent validation and verification.

That is why these emails are troubling because they outline clear actions to stop these traits..

Quote:
Apply for a research grand, collect your own data and do your own analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

When I do and you ask for my data to review and I send out a series of emails noting how I'm going to ignore your request and attempt to discredit you rather than deal with you, will you have any condemnations for me or would you prefer to just be classified a denier?

Quote:
Or collect all the vast amounts of freely available public domain data/code, do your own analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

Apparently you are unaware that this is exactly what the FOI's were about and were the emails discuss how to stop this process.

Quote:
Or pay for the data from the original sources (NWS etceteras), do your own code development and analyses, and then submit your results to the peer review process.

What if I just decide to have me and several other scientists threaten journals that accept contrary research by threatening not to publish to them and also threatening to wage a campaign to damage their credentials. Would that be science?

Quote:
Science is not about hand holding for the sake of hand holding.

Clearly this is about folks taking human and political considerations and injecting them into science.

As for the rest, no one cares about your dogmatic ad-homs repeated to avoid thinking.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #55 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Actually it could be, it just isn't until we know the contents of the papers.

Correct, and until we do know what was in those papers it is premature to draw conclusions in either direction. What we do have is an email excerpt indicating someone's desire to exclude certain papers from publication. Now we should get down to the why.

Right. And since we have no reason to presume any malintent, any conspiracy or any reason that they were trying to 'hide' anything for any reason, since we have no idea of the context and all of the scientists are conscientious, well-regarded and their findings concur with those of NASA and a federally-funded American climate study, let's put this email aside and move on to another one.

Come on. I'm prepared to discuss these one-by-one. Let's talk about Climategate. Let's discuss how these emails blow a hole below the waterline in the climate debate.

Next email please.
post #56 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

To recap:

HERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT HEADLINE BECAUSE I AM TALKING TO DULL-WITTED PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW JESUS.

No. Climate science is not 'religion'.

"Jesus Christ is the son of God and we are damned because a woman made from rib and / or clay had no self control": that is is 'religion'.

It is 'religion' because it is impossible to prove. There is no evidence it is true, and if you were born in Bangladesh you would be just as vehement a Muslim, I suspect.

This is 'science'. Courtesy of NASA.







Mean annual global temperature:



This can be proved by measuring things. People can compare their results and arrive at 'a consensus' that best fits the data.

Climate change is absolutely real, and it's almost 100% certain that human beings are responsible for it, and if you object it's because you've either been lied to or you don't want it to be true.

You can choose to accept these things are true, and do something about it, or you can sit on your arse and go down in history as one of those die-hard dicks that schoolchildren will be laughing at.

Since you believe that the world is only 6,000 years old I suspect that evidence isn't important to you and you are in the latter camp. But please don't try and project your world view on to those of us who actually spend time looking at the universe.
post #57 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Right. And since we have no reason to presume any malintent, any conspiracy or any reason that they were trying to 'hide' anything for any reason, since we have no idea of the context and all of the scientists are conscientious, well-regarded and their findings concur with those of NASA and a federally-funded American climate study, let's put this email aside and move on to another one.

Let's not and wait until we find out what they excluded and exactly why.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Come on. I'm prepared to discuss these one-by-one. Let's talk about Climategate. Let's discuss how these emails blow a hole below the waterline in the climate debate.

Next email please.

Go for it.
post #58 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Let's not and wait until we find out what they excluded and exactly why.

Go for it.

No. You're supposed to choose them. You believe that they are evidence of a conspiracy, when they are not, right?

So it's incumbent on you to state your case.

But OK then. Whatever. I will choose one, just to get the ball rolling. At random, this one:

Quote:
From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Something far more interesting
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Phil,

Of course I'll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some
direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and
the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and
synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked
by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with
you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with
manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it
would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some
overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal
of our present funding), etc. by I don't see a problem with that
in the least.

Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing
of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to
make mine available, though can't promise its the most user friendly
thing in the world.

In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you
need from me (cv, etc.).

cheers,

There is nothing in this email to prove any kind of conspiracy of any sort.

Please prove that there is.

Come on.
post #59 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Climate change is absolutely real,

I do have the give the "climate change" promoters credit for something...they have been able to reduce things to empty statements like the one above that have the appearance of having meaningful content.
post #60 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No. You're supposed to choose them. You believe that they are evidence of a conspiracy, when they are not, right?

Actually I haven't drawn any conclusions yet since I haven't read them all yet.
post #61 of 3039
I'm not worried about the emails so much -- I'd be more worried about self-fulfilling GIGO code.

Have a Gander...

Quote:
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot!
Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
:-)


In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #62 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Actually I haven't drawn any conclusions yet since I haven't read them all yet.

involuntary_serf has not read them, and so he does not want to discuss them.

OK. Is there anyone else here who wants to discuss the actual emails that are the subject of this thread?

This is a thread to talk about 'Climategate'.

I want to talk about the hacked emails that prove that climate change is a conspiracy, or that the data is being manipulated, or whatever it is they're supposed to prove.

Who would like to discuss the emails that are the subject of this thread?

We'll go through them one by one. This should be easy, because they are a scandal that prove that science is being twisted to dark ends. So come on.
post #63 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I do have the give the "climate change" promoters credit for something...they have been able to reduce things to empty statements like the one above that have the appearance of having meaningful content.

Fine. I'll rephrase.

'Climate change is real' means 'It is a fact that human industry and agriculture and transport are changing the climate'.

I'm not sure what other 'content' you thought was missing from that phrase.
post #64 of 3039
I'll throw this one out there since a search for the phrase notes it as one being reported in the various articles. It is posted here complete and as such, cannot be claimed to be misconstrued in any form or fashion. I welcome all those who spout the platitudes related to science to defend it.

Quote:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.
IPR should be relevant
here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it ! Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed. Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil

I've run a few of the acronyms to help with the short hand.

MM - McIntyre and McKitrick
IPR - Intellectual Property Rights
UEA - University of East Anglia


That email isn't supporting peer review, free inquiry or any attempts to confirm data, models or studies. Quite the opposite.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #65 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

We'll go through them one by one. This should be easy, because they are a scandal that prove that science is being twisted to dark ends. So come on.

No need for you to wait for anyone. Why are you waiting? Go ahead and debunk them, one-by-one.
post #66 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by mumbo jumbo View Post

'climate change is real' means 'it is a theory that human industry and agriculture and transport are changing the climate'.

tftfy
post #67 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

No need for you to wait for anyone. Why are you waiting? Go ahead and debunk them, one-by-one.

Let me explain in the most simple terms I can.

There is nothing to debunk.

These emails provide no evidence for any conspiracy.

Since these emails do not provide any evidence for any conspiracy, I cannot 'debunk' them.

All I can do is go through them, one by one, quoting them in full and writing the words 'This email does not provide any evidence for any conspiracy' after each one.

I did not start this thread. I am, however, willing to discuss these scandalous emails. But it is incumbent on those who believe that they are evidence of scandalous manipulation of facts to explain how.

Do you understand?

In other words, simpler still, if you believe that these emails show evidence of scandalous fraud, DAMN WELL SHOW WHERE. IT'S NOT MY JOB.
post #68 of 3039
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, for I am the great and powerful OZ!!

There, that will take care of that pesky peer review crap.
post #69 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, for I am the great and powerful OZ!!

There, that will take care of that pesky peer review crap.

Nice. Wizard of Oz. The curtain thing. Man behind the curtain. Great. Deftly slipped in. You've been on the internet before. I can tell.

Which of the emails in particular do you think means we can put our feet up and and declare that climate change is a fraud? Which email is the best evidence for a 'smoking gun'?

Which email would you like to discuss first? You choose, since I think that none of them do.
post #70 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Let me explain in the most simple terms I can.

There is nothing to debunk.

These emails provide no evidence for any conspiracy.

Since these emails do not provide any evidence for any conspiracy, I cannot 'debunk' them.

All I can do is go through them, one by one, quoting them in full and writing the words 'This email does not provide any evidence for any conspiracy' after each one.

Then what are you blathering on about?
post #71 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Which email would you like to discuss first? You choose, since I think that none of them do.

I'd like you to discuss the one trumptman posted above.
post #72 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot!
Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have
:-)

What dmz, is that email referring to and how does it support your view that a fraud has been committed? Do explain.

"I can make it up. So I have :-( " sums up YOUR attitude. LOL!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #73 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Nice. Wizard of Oz. The curtain thing. Man behind the curtain. Great. Deftly slipped in. You've been on the internet before. I can tell.

Which of the emails in particular do you think means we can put our feet up and and declare that climate change is a fraud? Which email is the best evidence for a 'smoking gun'?

Which email would you like to discuss first? You choose, since I think that none of them do.

Let's hear from the environmental and political activist George Monbiot...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ate-scientists
Quote:
It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
...
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign.

Or how 'bout Myron Ebell, the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112004093.html
Quote:
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research,"
...
"Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

And Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology? Here's what she has to say...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826#more-7826
Quote:
...
But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

Last August, CRU stated they "lost" the original data used that led to the conclusions of the IPCC. Now we learn that some there would delete data before allowing it to be reviewed.

Yes, that's great and powerful Oz speaking, the "man behind the curtain" who should be ignored. Just a man, fallible, not imposing at all. Oz, who speaks in stentorian tones worthy of one who speaks for "THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!" says screw peer review and ignore the man behind the curtain.

"Climate change" as a political topic is a fraud. Climate change as the changes the world has experienced since the beginning, the ever variable movement between glacial and interglacial cycles, is and always has been present since the world was formed, even before there were humans to complain about the process.
post #74 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No climate scientist is hiding anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Is there anyone else here who wants to discuss the actual emails that are the subject of this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Let me explain in the most simple terms I can.

There is nothing to debunk.

These emails provide no evidence for any conspiracy.

...All I can do is go through them, one by one, quoting them in full and writing the words 'This email does not provide any evidence for any conspiracy' after each one.

It is amazing the level that those drinking the climate change kool-aid will go to defend bad science. If these emails were representative of exchanges between Intelligent Design researchers, sargent and mumbo would be seething, cursing and demonizing any Christian within earshot.

How is it possible to deny the intent of these emails?

"Stop in 1960 to avoid the decline" is fairly straightforward, even for ignorant leftists.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #75 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Is there anything to discuss?

There are a bunch of apparently cherry picked emails, that's a given, none of which, BTW, appears in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

You're the one with the drive by thread, making ad hoc assumptions on largely out-of-context materials.

But just to humor you, have you ever worked for the government as either an employee or contractor?

Do you have any firsthand knowledge of IP and FOI issues in that regard?

I'm guessing no and no for anyone who has ever posted in PO, excluding myself, then the answers would be yes and yes, of course.

Best, and worst defense of the utterly indefensible. Ever.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #76 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

To recap:

Environmentalism as Religion



http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...aseligion.html

Aliens Cause Global Warming



http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speec...alwarming.html

[CENTER]
Michael Crichton writes fiction. That's an established fact.
[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #77 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Best, and worst defense of the utterly indefensible. Ever.

Coming from PO's bastion of logic and intellect , I'll take that as a compliment.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #78 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

It is amazing the level that those drinking the climate change kool-aid will go to defend bad science.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...4&postcount=57

You don't read the pretty charts, do you? You don't really think about what they mean, do you?

No. That would be "drinking the Kool-Aid."

Like NASA. And the Pentagon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I If these emails were representative of exchanges between Intelligent Design researchers, sargent and mumbo would be seething, cursing and demonizing any Christian within earshot.

This doesn't even deserve a LOL smilie.

THERE ISN'T ANY DEBATE LIKE THIS FOR FUCKING INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCHERS. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. THAT IS WHY THERE IS NONE.

There is no evidence they can measure.

There is nothing. They have nothing to test, nothing to prove, and nothing to disprove, so these kinds of emails ARE IMPOSSIBLE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN 'RESEARCHERS'.

I wouldn't be "seething". I would be pissing my pants with laughter.
post #79 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

It is amazing the level that those drinking the climate change kool-aid will go to defend bad science. If these emails were representative of exchanges between Intelligent Design researchers, sargent and mumbo would be seething, cursing and demonizing any Christian within earshot.

How is it possible to deny the intent of these emails?

"Stop in 1960 to avoid the decline" is fairly straightforward, even for ignorant leftists.

Strawman.

If you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about or the subject matter or it's context, I'd reply in kind.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #80 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by taskiss View Post

let's hear from the environmental and political activist george monbiot...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ate-scientists


or how 'bout myron ebell, the director of global warming and international environmental policy at the competitive enterprise institute...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112004093.html


and judith curry, a climatologist at the georgia institute of technology? Here's what she has to say...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826#more-7826


last august, cru stated they "lost" the original data used that led to the conclusions of the ipcc. Now we learn that some there would delete data before allowing it to be reviewed.

Yes, that's great and powerful oz speaking, the "man behind the curtain" who should be ignored. Just a man, fallible, not imposing at all. Oz, who speaks in stentorian tones worthy of one who speaks for "the scientific consensus!" says screw peer review and ignore the man behind the curtain.

"climate change" as a political topic is a fraud. Climate change as the changes the world has experienced since the beginning, the ever variable movement between glacial and interglacial cycles, is and always has been present since the world was formed, even before there were humans to complain about the process.

[center]blog-o-smear[/center]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate