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

Climategate - Page 12

post #441 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!

Excellent read by Lord Christopher Monckton. It's a 43 page PDF with footnotes, references, and essential readings. Good stuff.

No, really. Read Monckton's paper. He even goes so far as to analyze some of the scientists' computer program code that was obtained by the hacker.

The comments in the code (left by the programmer) are pretty revealing.

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 #442 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

YES. Yes, exactly.. I can explain away, make excuses for and dismiss these emails. THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT.

And if I am wrong (and I must be wrong, this is your Climategate thread, with the smoking gun that proves it's all a hoax) then it must a simple matter of SHOWING ME WHERE I'M WRONG.

You cannot do this. I can show that these emails prove nothing. You cannot defend them.

If you could, you would. But you do not. Because they prove nothing. The "repercussions" do not change that fact. The "repercussions" are like the "controversy" on a Truther or a Birther site. They change nothing.

If your case is so solid, you'd discuss it. You don't, because it's not. You can't.

If you want to post links to climate change denialists, start a blog. This a forum for discussion. If you can't discuss the subject of your thread IN the thread you started, that is cast iron fail.

FYI, trying to intimidate me into silence won't work, either.

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 #443 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

FYI, trying to intimidate me into silence won't work, either.

?

I am trying to get you to ENGAGE WITH ME IN A DISCUSSION.

Quote:
Right.

Shall we go through these hacked emails one by one to find the evidence that proves that anthropogenic climate change isn't real?

I'm really, truly game. Come on.

And I mean it. Come on.
post #444 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

YES. Yes, exactly.. I can explain away, make excuses for and dismiss these emails. THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT.

And if I am wrong (and I must be wrong, this is your Climategate thread, with the smoking gun that proves it's all a hoax) then it must a simple matter of SHOWING ME WHERE I'M WRONG.

You cannot do this. I can show that these emails prove nothing. You cannot defend them.

If you could, you would. But you do not. Because they prove nothing. The "repercussions" do not change that fact. The "repercussions" are like the "controversy" on a Truther or a Birther site. They change nothing.

If your case is so solid, you'd discuss it. You don't, because it's not. You can't.

If you want to post links to climate change denialists, start a blog. This a forum for discussion. If you can't discuss the subject of your thread IN the thread you started, that is cast iron fail.

This post has been sponsored by the letter U.

"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 #445 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This post has been sponsored by the letter U.



It's probably partially my fault for even responding in the first place. Although I certainly didn't ask to be harassed.

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 #446 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This post has been sponsored by the letter U.

What an excellent post. It does not address the topic of the thread, the matter at hand, and was only posted to make discussion impossible by way of a provocative personal attack.
post #447 of 3039
So jazzguru, you will not engage in a discussion with someone, in the thread you started, on the subject of the thread?

Do I understand you correctly?
post #448 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

So jazzguru, you will not engage in a discussion with someone, in the thread you started, on the subject of the thread?

Do I understand you correctly?

I'll act on some good advice.

Please provide a link to the post where I said these hacked e-mails contain evidence that proves that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

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 #449 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Please provide a link to the post where I said these hacked e-mails contain evidence that proves that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

Is this a joke?

Here is a link to the first post in the 'Climategate' thread. Which is this thread.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...07&postcount=1

Apparently you believe anthropogenic climate change is not 'factual'.

Here is a link to a post you made from about an hour ago.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=435

Apparently we won't get 'fooled' again.

But let's just save time. I'll just ask you outright.

Do you believe that climate scientists are faking data to prove that anthropogenic climate change is real or no?
post #450 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Is this a joke?

Here is a link to the first post in the 'Climategate' thread. Which is this thread.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...07&postcount=1

Apparently you believe anthropogenic climate change is not 'factual'.

Here is a link to a post you made from about an hour ago.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=435

Apparently we won't get 'fooled' again.

But let's just save time. I'll just ask you outright.

Do you believe that climate scientists are faking data to prove that anthropogenic climate change is real or no?

Interesting. You couldn't find a quote where I stated the hacked e-mails contain evidence that proves that anthropogenic climate change isn't real, so now you don't want to debate the e-mails anymore and move on to a different question, which I have already answered in this thread (see page 7, starting with post #264).

This "conversation" has indeed turned out to be a waste of my time.

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 #451 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Interesting. You couldn't find a quote where I stated the hacked e-mails contain evidence that proves that anthropogenic climate change isn't real, so now you don't want to debate the e-mails anymore and move on to a different question, which I have already answered in this thread (see page 7, starting with post #264).

This "conversation" has indeed turned out to be a waste of my time.

No. I want to continue this discussion.

I'm absolutely nonplussed. I provided a link to a post where you said

Quote:
By now I'm sure most of us have heard of the hacked e-mails and documents that make the meaning of the words "peer reviewed", "consensus", and "facts" utterly false when it comes to "anthropogenic climate change".

You then, one sentence later, provided a link here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Which is a place we can get 'up to speed', and this link is to a site which explicitly calls climate change a 'fraud.'

So... er, help me understand. Do you believe that these "hacked emails" prove that the "facts" are "utterly false" or not?

It's just... YOU SAY THIS IN THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD. It's here for everyone to read.

If you're not saying this, then please help me understand what it is you are saying.
post #452 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Et tu, Jon Stewart?

Transcript:

(BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN PERSON: A hacker in England got hold of emails between leading scientists which skeptics say show a clear effort to raise fears about global warming, and hide evidence against it.

(END VIDEO)

JON STEWART, HOST: Oh for f**k's sake! Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony. The iro---ny. Actually, the real story isn't quite that sensational. Basically, emails stolen from scientists at one of the leading centers for global warming show them discussing the work, a bit, how do I put this, casually.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN FOX ANNOUNCER READING EMAIL MESSAGE FROM CLIMATEGATE PARTICIPANTS): "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (Kevin Trenberth)

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." (Phil Jones, CRU Director)

(END VIDEO)

STEWART: (Laughing) See, I tell you it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here's what's great about science: in disagreement, we go back and look at the raw data.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.

(END VIDEO)

STEWART: Oh for f**k's sake! Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s! Laminated. What did you keep?

(BEGIN VIDEO)

UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): The scientists say they kept something called "value added data".

(END VIDEO)

STEWART: Value added data? What is that, numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

SENATOR JOHN INHOFE, (R-OKLA.): The fact that this whole idea on the global warming. I'm glad that's over, gone, done. We won. You lost. Get a life.

(END VIDEO)

STEWART: Alright. We knew Inhofe was going to say that. That guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a Slushee and gets a brain freeze. "If global warming is real, why does my head hurt?" But by the way, that quote was from BEFORE he found out about the leaked email story. But that's the point. If you care about an issue, and want it to be your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined towards the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to skullf**k polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans caused now apparently by God's tears!

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 #453 of 3039
All those posts and still no quotes. It's hard to distort when the source is demanded.

In the meantime here is a nice summary of the concerns related to the email. It has to do with destroying data, stopping inquiry and finally distorting and attempting to suspend the peer review process.


No one need go through every email to identify the problems. The only emails that are relevant are those where the problems occur.

"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 #454 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

All those posts and still no quotes. It's hard to distort when the source is demanded.

In the meantime here is a nice summary of the concerns related to the email. It has to do with destroying data, stopping inquiry and finally distorting and attempting to suspend the peer review process.


No one need go through every email to identify the problems. The only emails that are relevant are those where the problems occur.

Nice, I hadn't seen that article. Lays things out pretty clearly, regardless of where you stand on AGW.

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 #455 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

All those posts and still no quotes. It's hard to distort when the source is demanded.

In the meantime here is a nice summary of the concerns related to the email. It has to do with destroying data, stopping inquiry and finally distorting and attempting to suspend the peer review process.


No one need go through every email to identify the problems. The only emails that are relevant are those where the problems occur.

And this part was for franksargent:

Quote:
For years, climate alarmists have insisted their views are validated by the peer-review process, which ensures that only research of highest quality gets published in leading scientific journals or in reports of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). There is no reason to heed global-warming skeptics, they said, since their findings havent made the peer-review cut.

Behind that smug public appeal to scientific authority, however, was what now looks like a concerted effort to blackball the skeptics. In a July 2004 e-mail, for example, CRU director Phil Jones dismisses as garbage the work of two dissenters. I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, he assures fellow scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
post #456 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Nice, I hadn't seen that article. Lays things out pretty clearly, regardless of where you stand on AGW.

Jazzguru, you asked me to provide a link to the post where you said that in this thread that the hacked emails proved the falsity of global climate change.

I provided a link to a post where you said

Quote:
By now I'm sure most of us have heard of the hacked e-mails and documents that make the meaning of the words "peer reviewed", "consensus", and "facts" utterly false when it comes to "anthropogenic climate change".

You then, one sentence later, provided a link here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Which is a place we can get 'up to speed', and this link is to a site which explicitly calls climate change a 'fraud.'

So... er, help me understand. Do you believe that these "hacked emails" prove that the "facts" are "utterly false" or not?

It's just... YOU SAY THIS IN THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD. It's here for everyone to read.

Do you have no comments?

If you're not saying this, then please help me understand what it is you are saying.
post #457 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

All those posts and still no quotes. It's hard to distort when the source is demanded.

Er... the guy's ignoring my quote.
post #458 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your premise is flawed.

Seiously, giving you the time of day, is asking for too much.

You don't even understand the very basics of climate science, as has been shown countless times here in PO in the past.

Nuff said.

I don't you to give me the time of day because I could set my watch by your personal attacks.

I am also not claiming to be a climate expert. I know what I read. I can distinguish between fact an opinion. I know that there are dissenting scientists. I know data has been manipulated. I know the Earth is not actually warming. I haven't seen evidence that demonstrates man is causing the now non-existent warming. Your response? SDW doesn't know what he is talking about! Ignore him! And quote his next post!


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Where did you cut and paste this trash talk anyway?

I didn't cut and paste it at all. Just FYI.

Quote:

You don't even understand the basice of the actual factual climate science. Never have. Never will.

Just this one smackdown is all that is needed to see that you lack the necessary critical thinking skills;

Yes, frank...there you go again. Insults, attacks, etc. In light of your obnoxious posts in which you argue ad hominem, I'm not the one who has to be worried about what people think of my critical thinking skills. Oh, and question: What qualifies you on this topic? Are you a climatologist?


Quote:
How much of that 3% do you suppose stays and accumulates in the Earth's atmosphere annually?

HINT: It's not a small number.


While I don't have the data on that, I also don't doubt your assertion that it's a large percentage. However, you're asking the wrong questions. In my opinion, these are the correct ones:

1. Does the accumulation cause a greenhouse effect?

2. If so, how much of our emissions do we need reduce in order to bring these levels down sufficiently?

3. Is it feasible (or even possible) to make the reductions determined in #2 without a massive impact on human progress/lifestyle across the globe? Can we really just set emissions targets, carpool, drive hybrids, put windmills offshore, and pay green taxes? Or, do we need to stop using oil almost entirely, stop eating meat and raising livestock, trash our PCs and TVs, stop flying and buy Segue scooters for transport?


Answers:

1. Right now we know levels of various gases are increasing, primarily CO2. However, there has been no observable link between CO2 levels and global warming. This is a fact, not an opinion. C02 levels were far lower in the middle ages, where the climate was warmer.

2. I'm sure you've seen data on this. We could cut out current emissions by 50% and still not make a difference, or enough of one.

3. This answer is not as cut and dried, but it doesn't seem like it to me. If we accept that man made global warming is real, the next question is "what do we do about it?" This is a question I haven't heard you answer, Frank.
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 #459 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

And this part was for franksargent:

Get ready for a Wikipedia quote.

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 #460 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Et tu, Jon Stewart?

Transcript:

STEWART: Alright. We knew Inhofe was going to say that. That guy thinks global warming is debunked every time he drinks a Slushee and gets a brain freeze. "If global warming is real, why does my head hurt?" But by the way, that quote was from BEFORE he found out about the leaked email story. But that's the point. If you care about an issue, and want it to be your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined towards the scientific method, and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to skullf**k polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans caused now apparently by God's tears!

It sounds like Stewart is ready to go eviscerate the general population from a water tower with a sniper rifle. Bitter much Jon?

WSJ

Quote:
The University of East Anglia in the U.K. said Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit, had decided to step aside from the director's post.

I look forward to the Daily Show sketch about Phil "the quitter" Jones.

"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 #461 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It sounds like Stewart is ready to go eviscerate the general population from a water tower with a sniper rifle. Bitter much Jon?

WSJ



I look forward to the Daily Show sketch about Phil "the quitter" Jones.

If SNL picks this Climategate stuff up and runs with it, say goodbye to the AGW movement.

"I can see global warming from my house..."

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 #462 of 3039
OK. Just a 'head's up' for those about to engage in 'debate' with this forum's brave and fierce culture warriors.

This thread is not a place for discussion. I tried that with involuntary_serf and jazzguru. They didn't have the balls to discuss the topic of the thread in the thread started for that purpose.

This thread is now what it was always supposed to be, which is a blog post followed by comments telling the world how global warming is a lie and how fucking stupid those of us are who believe it exists are.

I tried to discuss it. Jazzguru tried to pussy out of the discussion by actually asking this:

Quote:
Please provide a link to the post where I said these hacked e-mails contain evidence that proves that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

So I gave him that quote:

Quote:
By now I'm sure most of us have heard of the hacked e-mails and documents that make the meaning of the words "peer reviewed", "consensus", and "facts" utterly false when it comes to "anthropogenic climate change".

in which, you will note, the words "facts" and "utterly false" are next to each other with "when it comes to anthropogenic climate change" following swiftly afterwards.

And he put me on 'ignore'. Brave, principled, man.

So this thread is a sort of blog now, like the blogs where, I assume, they get their information and exchange comments with other, equally honest, brave individuals interested in genuine debate.

Utterly, totally, fucking pathetic.
post #463 of 3039
So what? He can put you on ignore if he wants. Move on to the topic, not the poster.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #464 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundy View Post

So what? He can put you on ignore if he wants. Move on to the topic, not the poster.

Sure he can. But putting me on 'ignore' when he can't respond to something in a discussion is, well, lame.
post #465 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

"I can see global warming from my house..."

Do you also also see people try to put the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser from your house too?

HIGW debate is an interesting phenomena, in that the burden of proof is on those who aren't making the assertion. I blame the inventor of the word "consensus" for that.
post #466 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Fallout Over "ClimateGate" Data Leak Grows

Yet another U.N. Scientist speaks out:

Quote:
Some mainstream academics working in the area have distanced themselves from Mann, Jones, and other researchers whose correspondence has drawn allegations of impropriety. Aynsley Kellow, a professor at the University of Tasmania who was an expert reviewer for a U.N. global warming report, told ABC Radio there was evidence of a "willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results, you've got a resistance to any notion of transparency, an active resistance to freedom of information requests or quite reasonable requests from scientists to have a look at data so that it can be verified."

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 #467 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Do you also also see people try to put the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser from your house too?

HIGW debate is an interesting phenomena, in that the burden of proof is on those who aren't making the assertion. I blame the inventor of the word "consensus" for that.

I see that quite clearly, yes.

This whole Climategate thing has caught them off guard. HIGW proponents aren't used to being called deniers.

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 #468 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Do you also also see people try to put the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser from your house too?

HIGW debate is an interesting phenomena, in that the burden of proof is on those who aren't making the assertion. I blame the inventor of the word "consensus" for that.

But this isn't quite true.

The 'burden of proof' has been carried. ACC has been, to all intents and purposes, proven. The evidence is now virtually impossible to counter. There's so much evidence from so many different bodies and disciplines that if you're going to counter it you're going to have to come up with something utterly, utterly spectacular.

Yeah, it's on you. If you want to claim that the Holocaust never happened, or that 9/11 was committed by George Bush and Dick Cheney, your evidence has to be equally as good.
post #469 of 3039
I hope everyone's paying attention. The Left has the facts on their side and the Right's hopping around frantically in the dirt. How obvious it all is when it comes to AGW.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #470 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I hope everyone's paying attention. The Left has the facts on their side and the Right's hopping around frantically in the dirt. How obvious it all is when it comes to AGW.

I'd say that trying to prevent peer review of one's conclusions and having facts on one's side are mutually exclusive qualities.
post #471 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I hope everyone's paying attention. The Left has the facts on their side and the Right's hopping around frantically in the dirt. How obvious it all is when it comes to AGW.

By facts of course you mean those bits of information that may have been fudged, that can't be checked due to the original data being destroyed and who haven't had any peers review them due to an unwillingness to disclose. Additionally you mean those facts who haven't had dissent put against them due to various attempts to blacklist individuals and journals.

"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 #472 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

By facts of course you mean those bits of information that may have been fudged, that can't be checked due to the original data being destroyed and who haven't had any peers review them due to an unwillingness to disclose. Additionally you mean those facts who haven't had dissent put against them due to various attempts to blacklist individuals and journals.

Which information was 'fudged'?

No original data was destroyed, none of it,

No individuals have been blacklisted. No journals have been blacklisted. invented to win an argument. It's shit.



None of you actually want a discussion. This is, genuinely, the right wing echo chamber in all its glory. It's appalling, ghastly, we-live-in-a-world-without-facts lame.
post #473 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I hope everyone's paying attention. The Left has the facts on their side and the Right's hopping around frantically in the dirt. How obvious it all is when it comes to AGW.

I did not realize that Global Warming was a left vs right deal. If it is what you believe it is, then it is a Global Warming Proponent vs Global Warming Skeptic deal. This is not a political topic. Right? Oops! I mean, Correct?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #474 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I did not realize that Global Warming was a left vs right deal. If it is what you believe it is, then it is a Global Warming Proponent vs Global Warming Skeptic deal. This is not a political topic. Right? Oops! I mean, Correct?

It shouldn't be, but it is. Look around around you and see who's offering up falsehoods, it nearly always stems from the right. That's also reflected in opinion polls on GW. I'm not sure off of the top of my head but you can check, I think it's repub 70% skeptic and dem 30%. However here on this forum I don't think there's one single member from the right that isn't what I would class as an extremist skeptic, yourself included.

Check this out- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-leaked-emails
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #475 of 3039
Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/462545a; Published online 2 December 2009

Climatologists under pressure

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).

Mail trail

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions. This is best done via open online archives, such as the ones maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).

Tricky business

But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers' compliance with Britain's freedom of information requirements (see http://go.nature.com/zRBXRP).

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.
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 #476 of 3039
It's important for folks to try to control the spin, I guess. FIrst you circle the wagons, cowboys on the inside, those ignorant denialist savages on the outside...

We all agree that we can ignore the burden of proof, right? Cool! Or, Warm! It's the new cool!
post #477 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Which information was 'fudged'?

No original data was destroyed, none of it, so that's a definite lie. A genuine lie.

No individuals have been blacklisted. No journals have been blacklisted. This is also a lie. A proper falsehood, invented to win an argument. It's shit.

You have to tell lies to make your case.

None of you actually want a discussion. This is, genuinely, the right wing echo chamber in all its glory. It's appalling, ghastly, we-live-in-a-world-without-facts lame.

Are my pants on fire? Should I hang them on the telephone wire?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It shouldn't be, but it is. Look around around you and see who's offering up falsehoods, it nearly always stems from the right. That's also reflected in opinion polls on GW. I'm not sure off of the top of my head but you can check, I think it's repub 70% skeptic and dem 30%. However here on this forum I don't think there's one single member from the right that isn't what I would class as an extremist skeptic, yourself included.

Check this out- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-leaked-emails

It's rather funny how the proof is on your side and the proof consists of ad-homs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/462545a; Published online 2 December 2009

Climatologists under pressure

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

I'll buy arguments from editorials that don't need to resort to reason akin to "you are a poopiehead."

Also how exactly does one "stiffen" their opposition to the climate bill? Are they going to hit the no button to on their vote a little harder? Are they going to hold it down longer? How are they going to vote no more stridently?

Finally while Nature does publish research, it appears this citation is not linked and likely for good reason, the person doing the posting clearly doesn't want it to be known that it is an editorial.

I also thought this part rather cute.

Quote:
The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions.

Yes, I agree. It is very difficult to NOT tell all the other folks you are working with to delete emails and files. Likewise it is so very hard to avoid deleting storage that holds original data.

Isn't it funny how the reasoning becomes reversed. Don't we all understand, it takes really effort to stop the emails from being deleted. It's almost like that have to hit the "Don't Delete" button daily and if we distract them by demanding, oh... ethics be followed, then darn it, we deserve what we get when they forget to hit that "Don't Delete" button and so the emails mysteriously get deleted.

"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 #478 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Nature (journal)

Quote:
On October 30, 2008, Nature endorsed an American presidential candidate for the the first time when it supported Barack Obama during his campaign in America's 2008 presidential election.

Quote:
Peer review anomalies

A series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön were published in Nature in the 20002001 period. The papers, about superconductivity, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003 the papers were retracted by Nature. The Schön Scandal was not limited to Nature. Other prominent journals such as Science and Physical Review also retracted Schön's papers.

Before publishing one of its most famous discoveries, Watson and Crick's 1953 paper on the structure of DNA, Nature did not send the paper out for peer review at all. John Maddox, Nature's editor, stated that "the Watson and Crick paper was not peer-reviewed by Nature... the paper could not have been refereed: its correctness is self-evident. No referee working in the field ... could have kept his mouth shut once he saw the structure".

An earlier error occurred when Enrico Fermi submitted his breakthrough paper on the weak interaction theory of beta decay. Nature turned down the paper because it was considered too remote from reality. Fermi's paper was published by Zeitschrift für Physik in 1934, and finally published by Nature 5 years later, after Fermi's work had been widely accepted.

When Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for research initially rejected by Nature and published only after Lauterbur appealed the rejection, Nature acknowledged more of its own missteps in rejecting papers in an editorial titled "Coping with Peer Rejection":

[T]here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawas meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawkings black-hole radiation.

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 #479 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Fallout Over "ClimateGate" Data Leak Grows

Yet another U.N. Scientist speaks out:

Another blog-o-smear? You betcha.

Quote:
McCullagh has recently turned his journalistic focus to climate change skepticism.

In an article in The Register, McCullagh was once described by fellow technical journalist Andrew Orlowski as a, "draw by crayon libertarian," and has written in defense of libertarianism frequently. He began writing weekly columns for CBSNews.com on economic commentary entitled Other People's Money upon CBS Corporation's acquisition of CNET Networks. In August 2009, McCullagh renamed his column to Taking Liberties, which focuses on "individual rights and liberties, including both civil and economic liberties."

Quote:
Aynsley Kellow of the University of Tasmania, IPCC contributing author and Professor of Social Sciences. Has no discernable experience in climate science.

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 #480 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I did not realize that Global Warming was a left vs right deal.

Not only has it become so, but it's even more clever than that. Here's how it works:

1. If you disagree or are skeptical about the global warming claims, then:
2. Your base worldview and ideology must be researched and exposed.
3. If in #2 it is determined that your are a "conservative" or "libertarian" or non-liberal or non-"progressive", then whatever you think or say in #1 is invalid.
4. Rinse and repeat.

Read through the majority of franksargent's posts for examples of this.

Intelligent and educated people understand that this is the ad hominem fallacy. Others call it "proof" of some kind that disproves whatever claims the person might be making.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate