Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[GreyICE]

No I got it all.

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

Mirrors are not your friends when your goal is to evaluate others.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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...

What the hell are you talking about?
Who did I call a poster boy? Gore or Monckton?
And when did I say I agreed with Monckton?
In your first post you've shown the same paranoia and anger of seasoned veterans already.

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.

Sigh...
That sounds like a topic for another thread. There are many threads having that discussion already. I suggest you go and read them, in the meantime, I have no intention of locating and regurgitating the information because you are too lazy or new to explore the forum or internet and educate yourself.

It is sufficient to say that the science is not settled and only the true believers (gullible) believe that to be true.

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

Sure I can .........., the science forum is thataway >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(that said, see next)

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

Not necessarily, when we are discussing what the fallout from the climategate emails are, the science only forms a part of the debate. A lot has to do with politics, attitude etc

If the science is perceived to be 'on the nose', do you honestly think that politics and public opinion don't matter?

 

[RandFan]

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.

I WAS TRYING TO GET THE WHOLE THING.

Sorry Piggy. I came here to get just that so I didn't have to "cherry-pick".

 

[RandFan]

Mirrors are not your friends when your goal is to evaluate others.

I wasn't trying to evaluate anyone. I was trying to get someone to answer a question. After much bitching and moaning someone finally obliged.

Please note: That someone WASN'T YOU.

You told me to go away and engaged in ad hominem.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I find it interesting to watch the bullying, ridicule and ad homs come out from these guys when anybody questions their priests. They really give the warmer crowd a bad name. The religious fervour with which they take others to task hasn't been seen since the burning of witches.

I've observed before too that they debate by attrition then say that due to the lack of objectors there is consensus.
Seems similar to some of the stuff in the emails so I guess the tactic shouldnt be a huge surprise.

Fortunately some have thick skins. The truth will eventually win out; it is not the black and white they claim.

 

[Megalodon]

So, let's assume that rather than destroy data they had suggesting killing someone if the FOI came through (just an extreme to prove a point).

• No FOI
• No murder.
• No harm.
• No foul.
• Right?

You can think of it more as in a divorce case, someone saying "If the judge grants her the house I'd rather burn it down than hand it over."

The ruling comes, keys change hands, and nobody commits arson. This because they were venting some steam in a private conversation with a friend.

Now, had someone recorded it, should this person be charged with conspiring to commit a felony?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Still need more evidence of what the world is starting to think?
Here's Clive Crook (a concensus view warmer) on the emails.

Fascinating reading.

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php

A few quotes:


"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

...plain statistical incompetence.."

"And these guys call the other side "deniers"."

"The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous."

"... (if) this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that."

'Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot.'

 

[a_unique_person]

Still need more evidence of what the world is starting to think?
Here's Clive Crook (a concensus view warmer) on the emails.

Fascinating reading.

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php

A few quotes:


"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

...plain statistical incompetence.."

"And these guys call the other side "deniers"."

"The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous."

"... (if) this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that."

'Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot.'

A warmer who respects McIntyre? LOL. You need to get your specs adjusted.

 

[a_unique_person]

I find it interesting to watch the bullying, ridicule and ad homs come out from these guys when anybody questions their priests. They really give the warmer crowd a bad name. The religious fervour with which they take others to task hasn't been seen since the burning of witches.

I've observed before too that they debate by attrition then say that due to the lack of objectors there is consensus.
Seems similar to some of the stuff in the emails so I guess the tactic shouldnt be a huge surprise.

Fortunately some have thick skins. The truth will eventually win out; it is not the black and white they claim.

You insist on only talking about the politics of the case, did you expect anything else, since that is all the deniers have. I have asked you to come up with actual debate on evidence for the science, you duck it every time.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

A warmer who respects McIntyre? LOL. You need to get your specs adjusted.

Is that all you've got to say on it? One single lie in response; where does he say he "respects McIntyre"?

Crook says of himself he is a warmer. He says he followed the consensus and he now says the above things.

Read the article. Your denial is palpable.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You insist on only talking about the politics of the case, did you expect anything else, since that is all the deniers have. I have asked you to come up with actual debate on evidence for the science, you duck it every time.

There are plenty of threads for the science >>>>>>>>>thataway >>>>>>>>>

 

[a_unique_person]

Is that all you've got to say on it? One single lie in response; where does he say he "respects McIntyre"?

Crook says of himself he is a warmer. He says he followed the consensus and he now says the above things.

Read the article. Your denial is palpable.

The smart ones call themselves Luke Warmers and worship McIntyre. He is a funny guy, he doesn't dispute the basic phyics of AGW, yet he does everything he can to tear it down.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The smart ones call themselves Luke Warmers and worship McIntyre. He is a funny guy, he doesn't dispute the basic phyics of AGW, yet he does everything he can to tear it down.

So I am right.

Anyone who questions any aspect of your religion must be silenced by way of discrediting, ridicule, misinformation, smears, lies and slander.

You are begining to eat your and own.

Are you a scientologist too?

 

[a_unique_person]

So I am right.

Anyone who questions any aspect of your religion must be silenced by way of discrediting, ridicule, misinformation, smears, lies and slander.

You are begining to eat your and own.

Are you a scientologist too?

You haven't read many sites like wattsupmyass or climateaudit, have you?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You haven't read many sites like wattsupmyass or climateaudit, have you?

I have never heard of the first one. The second only through this forum and I do not go there. So I can say in all honesty that "No, I haven't read these sites".

Now, what about Crook's article?
Is the debate still over?
Just how deep is your faith and/or your denial?

 

[plumjam]

It's an interesting process, observing the denial-accusers go into denial mode.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have never heard of the first one. The second only through this forum and I do not go there. So I can say in all honesty that "No, I haven't read these sites".

Now, what about Crook's article?
Is the debate still over?
Just how deep is your faith and/or your denial?

There is no faith or denial. The science behind AGW is sound. That is why the scientists use the scientific method. There is no one source of knowledge, they replicate work independently.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

There is no faith or denial. The science behind AGW is sound. That is why the scientists use the scientific method. There is no one source of knowledge, they replicate work independently.

Of course, that's why warmers say things like this .....

Clive Crook.

"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

...plain statistical incompetence.."

"And these guys call the other side "deniers"."

"The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous."

"... (if) this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that."

'Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot.'

Some of your priests have been caught with their hand in the collection plate, others with alter boys and/or each other and you wont accept it is a problem.
Sounds like either blind faith or denial to me.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have never heard of the first one. The second only through this forum and I do not go there. So I can say in all honesty that "No, I haven't read these sites".

Now, what about Crook's article?
Is the debate still over?
Just how deep is your faith and/or your denial?

watts and climateaudit are leading the charge in smear and innuendo. if you want to understand why jones wouldn't want to co-operate with them, those sites would be a good place to start. Watts in particulare finds no story too wacky to not post it up as evidence that AGW is wrong, mcintyre can hardly start a topic without personalising it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course, that's why warmers say things like this .....




Some of your priests have been caught with their hand in the collection plate, others with alter boys and/or each other and you wont accept it is a problem.
Sounds like either blind faith or denial to me.

Scientific research has built in redundancy. And the article you are quoting is writen by a denier, one of the smarter ones, I'll give him that. Anyone who gives McIntyre any respect is a denier.