Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[GreyICE]

RF: And the other 10%?

You missed the rest of my post. But its pretty clear this is less reasoning and more crusade here, so get out the hoods and torches.

 

[RandFan]

You missed the rest of my post. But its pretty clear this is less reasoning and more crusade here, so get out the hoods and torches.

No I got it all.

You will see what you want to see so what difference does it make?

 

[tsig]

Don't worry. Most of the people on this forum hate you too, so your karma is balanced.

You don't speak for me.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

When both side start acting like asshats I have to wonder.

Can someone, anyone, just address the points made without silly nonsense? Why does it have to be like pulling teeth?

It's their denial.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So yes, I will continue to treat your requests with all the gravity they deserve, which mostly involves pounding a bird on a counter and insisting that it's an ex-Parrot. This started as a polite warning that I probably wouldn't be alone in that, but you plowed on...

90% of the 'damning' things said in those emails were completely innocuous.

Consider uourself warned RF.
It doesn't actually matter where you sit on this, if you ask a question that might in fact contradict their blind faith in AGW and its scientists you will be attacked and ridiculed.

The 90% might even be right. But as you have already noted yourself, there are many emails which require further investigation. Even scientists from the 'warmers' side of the divide have distanced themselves from the emails, have called for investigations and dismissals, and have said that the warmers are "in denial" if they believe them to be of no consequence.

The directory they were taken from was called FOIA.

Some speculate here that name infers ready to be handed over. And one might speculate to be hidden or deleted.

If they were serious about deleting old emails, they would have just deleted them. The FOIA directory was for the FOIA request.

Or deletion

which didn't happen, since no data was destroyed.

How would we know?

You don't speak for me.

Nor me

 

[Tricky]

Some off-topic and borderline uncivil posts moved to AAH. Lets not do that sort of thing, eh wot?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Piggy]

Sure, put him up if you want, but I think you could do better.
There is more than one version and interpretation out there.

Monckton is a certifiable loon.

If you want to frame this in terms of folks like Gore and Monckton, then you're leaving the entire question of AGW altogether.

Which I'm sure suits you just fine.

 

[Piggy]

You guys seem to think there is still only one side of the debate.
Others say there is more to it.

"Others", yes, but none of them are qualified and none of them have their facts straight.

There are "others" who insist evolution is a fraud. There are "others" who say space exploration is a hoax. There are "others" who say the Nazis had no program to exterminate Jews.

The mere presence of "others" who dissent is meaningless.

Climate change is a scientific question. Dissent from people who are ignorant of the science is a fart in a collander.

 

[Piggy]

I'm not saying they did conspire to commit a crime. I'm only saying that it looks that way.

No, it doesn't. Not if you look at the whole thing. Only if you get the denier spin on cherry-picked scraps of it.

 

[Piggy]

Science thread is thataway >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I haven't brought up science, this is not a science forum.

Ah, lovely!

Let's talk about whether there is a real "climate-gate" scandal (rather than trumped-up baloney) without bothering to look at the science.

Are you joking or do you not realize how pointless that is?

We cannot evaluate the supposed "climate-gate" charges without examining the science.

 

[a_unique_person]

Consider uourself warned RF.
It doesn't actually matter where you sit on this, if you ask a question that might in fact contradict their blind faith in AGW and its scientists you will be attacked and ridiculed.

The 90% might even be right. But as you have already noted yourself, there are many emails which require further investigation. Even scientists from the 'warmers' side of the divide have distanced themselves from the emails, have called for investigations and dismissals, and have said that the warmers are "in denial" if they believe them to be of no consequence.

I have seen that the vast majority sympathise with Jones and the CRU. He has been dragged into the cesspit of the deniers.

http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/d3aec95a5f27fbb6

click on the 'quoted text'. Jones has helped set up a world leading research centre that charts the course of warming over the globe. For his sins, he must be punished.

Some speculate here that name infers ready to be handed over. And one might speculate to be hidden or deleted.



Or deletion

Why would you set it up for deletion, and not delete it? You don't delete stuff by letting it sit there. You are using the logic of a 9/11 denier.

How would we know?

On the basis that you don't know, you default to guilty of everything every crackpot accuses them of. 9/11 logic again.

 

[bob_conklin]

This is from 2001.
http://www.karenselick.com/CL0110.html
The courts have given the OK to go ahead with the lawsuits.
They just havent come up with a case.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If you want to frame this in terms of folks like Gore and Monckton, then you're leaving the entire question of AGW altogether.

Who mentioned Gore?

"Others", yes, but none of them are qualified and none of them have their facts straight.

There are "others" who insist evolution is a fraud. There are "others" who say space exploration is a hoax. There are "others" who say the Nazis had no program to exterminate Jews.

The mere presence of "others" who dissent is meaningless.
.

One point at a time:
None of them are qualified? Suddenly 00s of scientists are not qualified? That sounds desperate to me.

Please don't suggest this topic is even remotely related to those other obscenities. I think you just Godwined yourself.

"Others" include the scientists you deny are real, politicians and the public at large. AGW scepticism is growing whether you wish to admit it or not.

Ah, lovely!

Let's talk about whether there is a real "climate-gate" scandal (rather than trumped-up baloney) without bothering to look at the science.

Climate change is a scientific question, correct. But this thread is a social and current event topic and the discussion is about climategate and its impact. There are heaps of scientific threads you can go to to spout your angry rants, which I suggest you do.

I have seen that the vast majority sympathise with Jones and the CRU. He has been dragged into the cesspit of the deniers.

Jones has helped set up a world leading research centre that charts the course of warming over the globe. For his sins, he must be punished..

Tragic use of logic here. Really an appeal to emotion more than anything.
Listening to some, he may have created a sciency mates club. I'm not saying he did or didn't. But your black and white denials are ludicrous which is supported by 'warmer' scientists who continue to distance themselves from the emails and Jones. One of your poster boys even agrees you are in denial if you dont believe this is cause for concern.

Why would you set it up for deletion, and not delete it? You don't delete stuff by letting it sit there.

On the basis that you don't know, you default to guilty of everything every crackpot accuses them of.

Agreed, conjecture from both sides.

On the basis that you don't know, you default to guilty of everything every crackpot accuses them of. 9/11 logic again.

Wrong.
I am pointing out that no-one knows. You say it didn't happen. How could you know this. Similarly, I don't know if it did. All you have is your belief (hope) that it's true.

This is from 2001.
http://www.karenselick.com/CL0110.html
The courts have given the OK to go ahead with the lawsuits.
They just havent come up with a case.

Don't expect them to respond to this.

 

[Wangler]

From: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: [email protected]

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: [email protected]

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil

Just to weigh in, it is this e-mail that RF refers to that is the most problematic, in my mind.

An e-mail from the CRU Director, with "IPCC & FOI" in the subject line, and "please delete any emails you have had.....re AR4" just seem, well, weird.

It is claimed that all of this CRUgate (I don't like the term climategate, as it suggests that the entire field is a sham) is snippets of e-mail conversations taken out of context, but I can't understand a reasonable context that paints this email from Phil Jones in a good light.

It doesn't seem likely that the Director is sending reminders to follow some policy to expunge old e-mails for security reasons (especially worded as this one is), and I cannot see how any e-mails regarding the IPCC AR4 could be considered classified.

Does anyone else have any ideas?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Just on the "science is settled" and "there is no debate" line.
Here's a little item just showing what the masses think.

"Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."

"This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely."

Full report

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ns_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming

 

[GwydionMapDon]

Originally Posted by Piggy
If you want to frame this in terms of folks like Gore and Monckton, then you're leaving the entire question of AGW altogether.
Who mentioned Gore?

Plenty of people. You've certainly emphasized Monckton, yourself. And you call him a poster boy... well, you can discount people like this as "poster boys" but when they supposedly say something that you agree with, suddenly they are people worth listening to? 'Nothing hypocritical about that... Let's just agree that you can't discount someone's opinion one minute and then parade it about the next, shall we? Esecially when they don't have authority on the matter...

"Others" include the scientists you deny are real, politicians and the public at large. AGW scepticism is growing whether you wish to admit it or not.

Which scientists and what are their fields? Specifically, which climatologists and how many? What percentage would you put it at?
As to the significance of politicians and the public at large... I don't care if they were of ONE MIND. Yeah, mobile vulgus is ruling, let's fall in line! Science is not an election, nor is it a... a courtroom drama! But I get it: it's only fair if we submit scientific papers to a completely egalitarian vote. Nevermind credentials, right? Think how libertarian we would be then.

Climate change is a scientific question, correct. But this thread is a social and current event topic and the discussion is about climategate and its impact. There are heaps of scientific threads you can go to to spout your angry rants, which I suggest you do.

Lame. You can't wriggle out of the science of the matter. It is integral to the debate.

"Don't expect them to respond to this.

That article was laughable. Actually, that probably IS the best response: laughter. But for laughs...

From the article:

Apparently, global warming propaganda has become so firmly entrenched in the popular psyche that these folks seem to think that proof of their claim—not only the existence of significant warming, but the identity of some wicked perpetrator responsible for it—will be an open-and-shut case.
However, a recent article by Michael Heberling called "Unprecedented Global Warming?" in the Foundation for Economic Education’s magazine Ideas on Liberty should give them pause.

Heberling on climatology? Bwahahahahaha! There's a shining light in the field. Who does he write for, Ideas on Liberty? As in, the Liberty to perpetuate external costs without constraint? Yeah, I wouldn't give to that man's opinion much credence on the economy, much less the climate. Are you a Libertarian, too? I'm sorry to break it to you, but negative externalities are real. Try again.

 

[daenku32]

Just on the "science is settled" and "there is no debate" line.
Here's a little item just showing what the masses think.

Just like Creationism.

 

[GwydionMapDon]

Just on the "science is settled" and "there is no debate" line.
Here's a little item just showing what the masses think.

"Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."

What, argumentum ad populum? Scientific debate is what is relevant...

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I don't recall the scientific process incorporating court proceedings as a part of it.

*AHEM*

Galileo was ordered to Rome to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world," against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#The_Trial

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Just on the "science is settled" and "there is no debate" line.
Here's a little item just showing what the masses think.

"Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data."

"This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely."


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ns_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming

Of course not.

If they had followed them closely they'd realise* how little the emails actually show.


*i'm an optimist

Full report