Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Piggy]

Great
And while your doing that get this info you promised too

We're still waiting

Oh, crap! I just went and posted it all on the sister thread, since I had them both open.

My apologies.

Here's where the posts start.

This is the one that covers the most ground.

Now, obviously, since I'm on three parallel threads, actually, I've gone and lost track of where I'm posting what, so if that doesn't address the particular issue on this thread -- which it may not since I apparently haven't kept things straight -- then please give me a recap and I'll be happy to provide more linkage.

Again, my apologies.

 

[Piggy]

One thing I didn't address specifically was the unimportance of "climategate".

Here are some good pages to start with....

Where's the data?

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.

The CRU hack

The CRU hack: Context

The CRU hack: More context

 

[Piggy]

We're still waiting

Oh, as for why DogB's claims that his status as a scientist don't mean a hill of beans -- claims that I do indeed classify as charlatanism, since he's attempting, by association, to make himself out to know something which he obviously doesn't know -- I merely direct you to the threads themselves, in which his statements about the science have been roundly and consistently refuted by folks who do know the science, with plenty of cites to support them.

If you don't buy that, then feel free to disagree with me. I won't mind.

 

[Piggy]

We're still waiting

Ahem... You cannot simultaneously claim that the established science is not a fraud AND deny AGW, because that's the established science.

Your only other alternative is to claim that all climate scientists are idiots, which would of course also require a CT to explain how it could possibly be that only obviously unqualified people -- who can't see flaws which are apparent to laymen -- have been hired as climate scientists over the past several decades.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Here's where the posts start.

This is the one that covers the most ground.

Theory, supposition and conjecture. Hardly proof.

One thing I didn't address specifically was the unimportance of "climategate".

Here are some good pages to start with....

Where's the data?

Climatologists under pressure

The CRU hack

The CRU hack: Context

The CRU hack: More context

Gee, I expected something better than this. You could have at least popped in something from somewhere that doesn't have a vested interest.
If you honestly think climategate has no impact you are seriously deficient.

Oh, as for why DogB's claims that his status as a scientist don't mean a hill of beans -- claims that I do indeed classify as charlatanism, since he's attempting, by association, to make himself out to know something which he obviously doesn't know -- I merely direct you to the threads themselves, in which his statements about the science have been roundly and consistently refuted by folks who do know the science, with plenty of cites to support them.

If you don't buy that, then feel free to disagree with me. I won't mind.

You're right.I don't buy it.

Charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame...

Please explain how?

Ahem... You cannot simultaneously claim that the established science is not a fraud AND deny AGW, because that's the established science..

Sure I can, And I can keep doing it.
Your problem is one of approaching the topic with a very narrow perspective. You apply illogical reasoning and come up with appallingly inaccurate descriptions of others.

Your only other alternative is to claim that all climate scientists are idiots, which would of course also require a CT to explain how it could possibly be that only obviously unqualified people -- who can't see flaws which are apparent to laymen -- have been hired as climate scientists over the past several decades.

No. There are plenty of other alternatives. Once again you apply a very limited range of thought and perspective to the issue. To quote JREF (which is fast becoming a favourite)

JREF Front Page
Now, hundreds of millions of people all over the world believe in the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and some of them are serious scientists. There are many scientists for whom AGW is a primary area of study, and there is considerable controversy within the scientific community surrounding AGW's reality. Belief in AGW may be silly, as far as we know, but it is not silly on its face, because the thin (and fragile) envelope of gas surrounding our homeworld is mysterious even to those who study it, and those who do study it seem to argue a lot. Since people who are more scientifically literate than we cannot agree about AGW, we have no official opinion on it, save this: Be skeptical of everything.

Do you charge JREF with the same tag of CTer?

 

[a_unique_person]

Then you should have no difficulty in providing the evidence as to why?
You are all talk and no action Piggy. Please put something, anything up so we can talk about it.
You say I give nothing?
I've given you The Times report on The Met. Give me something that counters it.

And as far as I can tell, The Times report is a misrepreseantation of what the Met Actually said. Scientists would never use the wording that was given in that article.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And as far as I can tell, The Times report is a misrepreseantation of what the Met Actually said. Scientists would never use the wording that was given in that article.

The same way they would never say "the science is settled" presumably?
And we have all seen that quite clearly, some have use it.

That said, I have been unable to find a direct quote from The Met on that either - we are all going on the report alone.
Neither of us can prove it either way at this stage. And until I see otherwise, the quote is accurate for mine.

 

[Piggy]

Theory, supposition and conjecture. Hardly proof.

That's the end of it, Alfie. All of the IPCC conclusions are thoroughly documented and solidly supported by evidence.

You are now in hard-core denial mode, simply lying about the evidence.

If that's how you're going to behave, then there's no point in any further conversation.

You asked for evidence, and as usual you simply choose to ignore or dismiss it.

That's called folly.

 

[Piggy]

Gee, I expected something better than this. You could have at least popped in something from somewhere that doesn't have a vested interest.

And here comes the conspiracy theory.

Rather than discuss the points raised in the links, which go into detail about what the emails actually say, you simply play the "vested interest" card.

Conspiracy theory, plain and simple.

 

[Piggy]

Do you charge JREF with the same tag of CTer?

there is considerable controversy within the scientific community surrounding AGW's reality

That statement is simply not true, whether it's posted on the JREF home page or anywhere else. There is as little controversy within the scientific community today regarding the reality of AGW as there is regarding the reality of evolution.

It is possible to be an AGW denier out of ignorance -- simply believing that things are not the way they are.

That said, I will simply repeat my response to your claim that the current science can actually be accepted and yet AGW denied:

You cannot simultaneously claim that the established science is not a fraud AND deny AGW, because that's the established science.

Your only other alternative is to claim that all climate scientists are idiots, which would of course also require a CT to explain how it could possibly be that only obviously unqualified people -- who can't see flaws which are apparent to laymen -- have been hired as climate scientists over the past several decades.

On the "coherent narrative" thread, I've said that it is not possible to construct a coherent anti-AGW narrative without a CT, and that is true.

The IPCC reports, which represent the stance of the world's climate science community, are proof of that, as is the current state of the research (which, as always, can be confirmed by browsing Science Daily's climate page).

Since it's not possible to demonstrate any actual scientific controversy over the fundamentals of AGW, conspiracy is the only option.

 

[Piggy]

Neither of us can prove it either way at this stage.

Then you would do well not to depend on it for your arguments, which utterly ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW which you could avail yourself of, but choose not to.

You dismiss the actual science on the grounds that scientists don't work for free and go begging in their spare time.

You simply ignore the hard evidence of sea level rise, melting glaciers, and so forth with a mere wave of your hand.

That's textbook denialism, employed by Holocaust deniers, creationists, the moon hoax crowd, 9/11 Truthers, and other assorted cranks.

Their methods are your methods. And as long as you continue to use those methods, you will persist in your error.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Then you would do well not to depend on it for your arguments, which utterly ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW which you could avail yourself of, but choose not to.

You dismiss the actual science on the grounds that scientists don't work for free and go begging in their spare time.

You simply ignore the hard evidence of sea level rise, melting glaciers, and so forth with a mere wave of your hand.

That's textbook denialism, employed by Holocaust deniers, creationists, the moon hoax crowd, 9/11 Truthers, and other assorted cranks.

Their methods are your methods. And as long as you continue to use those methods, you will persist in your error.

Yawn

 

[Piggy]

Yawn

And so Alfie ends his campaign of denial. Not with a bang, but a wimper.

Not one shred of evidence.

Not one valid point.

Just a yawn.

Good night, Alfie.

Sweet dreams.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And so Alfie ends his campaign of denial. Not with a bang, but a wimper.

Not one shred of evidence.

Not one valid point.

Just a yawn.

Good night, Alfie.

Sweet dreams.

I need no further valid points. They have all been laid out before you by others and me; unlike you I don't feel the need in repeating myself and nauseum.
You ignore them and continue on with your group-think sermons of hate, alarm and ad homs.

They, my chubby friend, are a yawn.

 

[Piggy]

I need no further valid points. They have all been laid out before you by others and me; unlike you I don't feel the need in repeating myself and nauseum.
You ignore them and continue on with your group-think sermons of hate, alarm and ad homs.

They, my chubby friend, are a yawn.

Ok, let's get real here.

You have offered not a single shred of evidence.

So I'm calling bull**** on that.

Furthermore, you have refused to even look at any evidence offered to you, even when you have demanded it.

The most absurd and ridiculous ploy was when you rejected the science out of hand precisely because it came from professional scientists.

You have offered precisely zero evidence-based responses to any of the links and cites which I provided you at your request. And you have offered exactly zero evidence-based responses to to any other links, cites, and evidence-based arguments offered by anyone else.

And this is only relevant because it is also the case that no other AGW denier, on this or any other thread, is able to support their position with valid cites.

I'm glad you put that little ad hominem comment there at the end.

It's an object lesson in critical thinking.

Your conclusion that I'm "chubby" -- which you've bandied about before -- because of my choice of Piggy as a forum name and Hugh Edwards as an avatar is emblematic of your ability to evaluate evidence. (Especially considering that my location blurb is a dead giveaway to their actual significance.)

For what it's worth, I do not believe that you are either a little boy who travels through time with a talking dog, or a chronic womanizer in therapy for alcohol abuse.

Here's the deal, Alfie

If and when you post evidence which overturns (or even casts doubt) on the current science regarding climate change, then we'll talk.

I don't expect it will be anytime soon.

 

[lomiller]

unlike you I don't feel the need in repeating myself and nauseum.

So we've heard the last of your conspiracy theories then? Somehow I suspect not...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That statement is simply not true, whether it's posted on the JREF home page or anywhere else. There is as little controversy within the scientific community today regarding the reality of AGW as there is regarding the reality of evolution.

Since it's not possible to demonstrate any actual scientific controversy over the fundamentals of AGW, conspiracy is the only option.

OK. So JREF are Cters too?

Ok, let's get real here.
You have offered not a single shred of evidence.
So I'm calling bull**** on that.
Furthermore, you have refused to even look at any evidence offered to you, even when you have demanded it.

The most absurd and ridiculous ploy was when you rejected the science out of hand precisely because it came from professional scientists. .

No, I rejected it when it came from a publication that has direct links with people seemingly complicit in the suppression of alternate views.

You have offered precisely zero evidence-based responses to any of the links and cites which I provided you at your request. And you have offered exactly zero evidence-based responses to to any other links, cites, and evidence-based arguments offered by anyone else.

Wrong
I am not bound to supply conflicting science data in a non science forum, so the point is moot. We are having sciency discussions on other threads; this is about politics and social issues. Supporting evidence has been provided on these topics and there is much more in the offing.
Moreover, it is you who have failed in providing any contradictory support to those points and have consistently applied ad homs and bile to the thread.

I'm glad you put that little ad hominem comment there at the end.

For what it's worth, I do not believe that you are either a little boy who travels through time with a talking dog, or a chronic womanizer in therapy for alcohol abuse.

Wrong, I'm a little dog travelling through time with a boy. I am an untreated sexaholic with a leg fettish with chronic alcohol tendencies.

But thanks for playing

So we've heard the last of your conspiracy theories then? Somehow I suspect not...

Where have I ever said I actually think there is a Conspiracy Theory?
I do not, regardless of what our porcine friend may lie about.

 

[elbe]

No, I rejected it when it came from a publication that has direct links with people seemingly complicit in the suppression of alternate views.

Where have I ever said I actually think there is a Conspiracy Theory?
I do not, regardless of what our porcine friend may lie about.

Those don't seem conflicting to you?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Those don't seem conflicting to you?

Not really.
Confirmation bias is not the same as CT.

 

[elbe]

Not really.
Confirmation bias is not the same as CT.

You are suggesting that climatologists are knowingly suppressing alternative science, that would be a conspiracy. A remarkably stupid one, to be honest - though, I guess, less stupid than space lasers. If you aren't suggesting that then you're doing a lousy job of explaining what you think is happening; the general vibe I get from your posts is conspiracy theorist.