Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

You might be right; I wouldn't know.
I do know one thing though and that is your post ^^^ is not relevant to any questions here, nor the topic at hand.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

He is not a denier, he is a warmer.
Where does he say he respects McIntyre? He doesn't.

This aside, he is not the only one saying these things.
The whole debate has become enflamed by these emails and you and yours simply will not see it.

The emails do not prove that AGW is false. But they raise a lot of questions about the manner in which thing went at East Anglia and the mates club that crosses the oceans.
Why do the warmers find this so hard to accept?
It reminds me of the creationists denying Darwin and Scientologists hitting back at critics.

 

[a_unique_person]

He is not a denier, he is a warmer.
Where does he say he respects McIntyre? He doesn't.

This aside, he is not the only one saying these things.
The whole debate has become enflamed by these emails and you and yours simply will not see it.

The emails do not prove that AGW is false. But they raise a lot of questions about the manner in which thing went at East Anglia and the mates club that crosses the oceans.
Why do the warmers find this so hard to accept?
It reminds me of the creationists denying Darwin and Scientologists hitting back at critics.

Funny you remind me of creationsists denying Darwin. I'm sticking with the scientists. The emails raise a lot of question about how do you best deal with abusive amateurs who are determined not to advance science, but wreck it. Jones didn't pick it right, but then he got to where he was because he was a good scientist, not a good politician.

Ben Crook

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704u/nj_crook_2007-04-03

A few climate scientists, despite their distaste for the deny-everything skeptics, are starting to point this out. But I wouldn't say that their message is coming through loud and clear. And I can understand their hesitation. To raise any sort of objection to the Gore worldview is to invite derision and contempt. The Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg gave testimony alongside Gore last week. Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book that provided compelling evidence that environmental activists have tended to exaggerate current and foreseeable hazards. That makes him the contemporary equivalent of a medieval heretic. He is not in fact a global-warming skeptic in the sense I just defined—but he is not much alarmed about the danger and believes that other global development priorities are more pressing. His thinking might be wrong—I believe that it is mostly right—but, in any event, it surely cannot be an illegitimate point of view. Well, Google the name to get a taste of the vituperation and outright character assassination that you draw down upon yourself by adopting such a position.

As I said, a Luke Warmer, smarter than a denialist, but still anti the AGW mainstream. Lomborg was the original person to call him self a sceptic while being nothing of the sort. His 'skeptical environmentalist' was a travesty of statistics. According to Lomborg, statistically Australia is one of the best countries off in the world in terms of water. All he did was divide the total rainfall by the population. What an idiot.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Funny you remind me of creationsists denying Darwin. I'm sticking with the scientists. The emails raise a lot of question about how do you best deal with abusive amateurs who are determined not to advance science, but wreck it. Jones didn't pick it right, but then he got to where he was because he was a good scientist, not a good politician.

Ben Crook



As I said, a Luke Warmer, smarter than a denialist, but still anti the AGW mainstream. Lomborg was the original person to call him self a sceptic while being nothing of the sort. His 'skeptical environmentalist' was a travesty of statistics. According to Lomborg, statistically Australia is one of the best countries off in the world in terms of water. All he did was divide the total rainfall by the population. What an idiot.

It seems to me that once again, anyone who asks a legitimate question from anywhere within the spectrum of belief is (as he says) a heretic if it doesn't match your version of the earths doom under AGW. You now label him a "smart luke warmer".
Is Monbiot a "luke warmer" when he calls you a denier too?

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems to me that once again, anyone who asks a legitimate question from anywhere within the spectrum of belief is (as he says) a heretic if it doesn't match your version of the earths doom under AGW. You now label him a "smart luke warmer".
Is Monbiot a "luke warmer" when he calls you a denier too?

No, i just repeated what i said before, the smart ones are 'luke warmers'. Being a fan of McIntyre and Lomborg places him pretty squarly in that camp. They like to say they are warmers, but then do everything they can to work out why it's not actually going to be a problem and there is nothing to worry about. Cherry picking their science.

 

[BenBurch]

Somebody needs to explain to me why the ice is melting, the oceans are acidifying, the range of animals is moving towards the pole, ancient trees are changing their growth pattens, and how the increase in CO2 can be having no effect in spite of a famous 150 year old prediction of physics in order to overturn AGW.

Nobody has been able to put together any hypothesis that CAN address this.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Somebody needs to explain to me why the ice is melting, the oceans are acidifying, the range of animals is moving towards the pole, ancient trees are changing their growth pattens, and how the increase in CO2 can be having no effect in spite of a famous 150 year old prediction of physics in order to overturn AGW.

Nobody has been able to put together any hypothesis that CAN address this.

It probably relates to the fact the the earth is actually warming.

It strikes me as an interesting phenomenon, that amongst the warmers crowd they can't see that most deniers acknowledge Global Warming, but are skeptical on AGW. The problem arises when we don't subscribe to their "sky is falling" prophesies and "it's our fault" self flaggelations.

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems to me that once again, anyone who asks a legitimate question from anywhere within the spectrum of belief is (as he says) a heretic if it doesn't match your version of the earths doom under AGW. You now label him a "smart luke warmer".
Is Monbiot a "luke warmer" when he calls you a denier too?

Monbiot got rattled. I think he fell for the cherry picking. I'm not denying anything, but I'm not going to crucify Jones for wanting to stand up to a sustained attack on science. He just could have handled it better.

 

[a_unique_person]

Somebody needs to explain to me why the ice is melting, the oceans are acidifying, the range of animals is moving towards the pole, ancient trees are changing their growth pattens, and how the increase in CO2 can be having no effect in spite of a famous 150 year old prediction of physics in order to overturn AGW.

Nobody has been able to put together any hypothesis that CAN address this.

McIntyre picks his marks carefully. Paleoclimatology is only a very young science that is finding it's way. Manns ground breaking research makes an easy target. He ignores the fundamental science, and anything that strenghthens the case for AGW. It's funny to see his contribution to the IPCC report. Out of the many discussions of evidence, for all his sound and fury, McIntyre's contribution ends up in about two paragaphs with the 'divergence' problem that Jones has been abused about. He is a storm in a teacup, but a highly influential one.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Monbiot got rattled. I think he fell for the cherry picking. I'm not denying anything, but I'm not going to crucify Jones for wanting to stand up to a sustained attack on science. He just could have handled it better.

Now you can read Monbiots mind? JREFs million is in danger then.

Isn't it true that these intelligent, educated, scientific people have valid causes for concern over the emails and their fallout? Moreover they would also have a better understanding of the issue than you or I?

Why do you insist on standing up for these people prior to any investigation? BTW, I am not wanting to hang them (yet), I am simply pointing out that this issue, is an issue, not the storm in a teacup that the warmers like to suggest.

 

[Wangler]

Somebody needs to explain to me why the ice is melting, the oceans are acidifying, the range of animals is moving towards the pole, ancient trees are changing their growth pattens,

My hypothesis is that the earth is in a warming cycle not predominated by man's influence.

and how the increase in CO2 can be having no effect in spite of a famous 150 year old prediction of physics in order to overturn AGW.

To maintain AGW, it seems to me that it must be shown conclusively that CO2 is the ultimate and primary driver of the warming trend, far in excess of all other influences.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

McIntyre picks his marks carefully. Paleoclimatology is only a very young science that is finding it's way. Manns ground breaking research makes an easy target. He ignores the fundamental science, and anything that strenghthens the case for AGW. It's funny to see his contribution to the IPCC report. Out of the many discussions of evidence, for all his sound and fury, McIntyre's contribution ends up in about two paragaphs with the 'divergence' problem that Jones has been abused about. He is a storm in a teacup, but a highly influential one.

Off topic again.

Why this obsession with McIntyre?

 

[GreyICE]

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.

Another page done. How's that 'it's not silly' hypothesis working out for you?

Your 'questions' were quite silly too, as it was a 'what if' hypothetical that didn't happen.

By the way, if this goes on another page, it'll still be quite silly.

Keep it civil please.

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

 

[Ryokan]

Has this been posted yet?

 

[BenBurch]

My hypothesis is that the earth is in a warming cycle not predominated by man's influence.

That isn't a hypothesis, its a hunch. A hypothesis would give me something to test so that I could decide between that case and the hypothesis generally accepted by science. Can you deliver on that?

To maintain AGW, it seems to me that it must be shown conclusively that CO2 is the ultimate and primary driver of the warming trend, far in excess of all other influences.

Svante Arrhenius settled that 150 years ago. If we know how much CO2 has changed we can compute how much warming there will be. Period. We then need to prove man put the CO2 there. Isotopes prove that. Period.

You need to show me where Arrhenius (and Fourier) were wrong.

Well?

 

[GreyICE]

My hypothesis is that the earth is in a warming cycle not predominated by man's influence.

'Cycles' are not mysterious, Wangler. For instance, there is an Otto cycle. Fill, Compress, Ignite, Expand, Exhaust.

This cycle drives your car. But each step in the cycle is driven by an event, each one has causes.

Saying we're in a 'non-human caused warming cycle' is a cop out. It's just saying 'goddidit' unless you hypothesize something that drives the cycle.

You haven't. There's a lot of evidence that it's CO2, and your evidence that its not boils down to 'nada.'

 

[RandFan]

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?

If there had been specific instructions. Sure.

Bob: We will meet at 8:00 am. That's when she leaves. Bob bring gasoline. Tim, bring your crowbar to get into her house.

Not a slam dunk but it would most certainly have raised questions (as I felt were raised here)

 

[RandFan]

Another page done. How's that 'it's not silly' hypothesis working out for you?

It's working quite well actually. People finaly answered questions. It turns out that not all JREF posters are asshats.

By the way, if this goes on another page, it'll still be quite silly.

I only had some questions. I only wanted someone to answer them. I said from the start that A.) I supported Cap and Trade B.) I accepted AGW. C.) I don't have an agenda.

Why would it go on?

You are so cynical you don't think that there are sincere people with questions and that there are sincere people who are willing to answer them.

 

[Piggy]

None of them are qualified? Suddenly 00s of scientists are not qualified?

What a truly beautiful Freudian slip.

Yes, 00s of client scientists who dispute AGW.

Just like the 00s of scientists who dispute evolution.

GW Denial is only growing among folks who don't know what the data actually shows. Doesn't change the facts on the ground.

 

[Piggy]

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.

But of course the issue of "climategate" cannot be addressed without considering the science, because the validity of the charges being made in "climategate" cannot be evaluated without looking at what the researchers did and why.

The reason "climategate" won't stop the "greens" is simply b/c it's a fraud. And to understand why it's a fraud, you have to look at what actually happened.

If you exclude all reference to the actual research, then you're left with nothing but spin, which tells you zip.