Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

Then you are right, I must be doing a lousy job of explaining myself.

I have consistently said that climategate is damaging. Others wish to argue otherwise, I simply throw up the counter arguments
It doesn't alter the science however, checks are inevitable and appropriate. Who knows what they will find?

In the meantime, it seems there are a number of scientists complaining about their work being suppressed due to the 'boys club' that was peer review process in East Anglia. This was touched on in the emails - and even warmer scientists have said this aspect is disturbing.

But if you are getting that I'm a CTer from the "vibe" of what I write, who am I to argue with your woo.

To repeat my position again...
I am not a denier, I believe there is AGW. I am skeptical of the 'A'. As are many.

 

[BenBurch]

elbe, no real Conspiracy Theorist ever self-identifies that way.

Because THEIR Conspiracy is REAL.

The psychology of it is interesting.

 

[elbe]

I have consistently said that climategate is damaging. Others wish to argue otherwise, I simply throw up the counter arguments
It doesn't alter the science however, checks are inevitable and appropriate. Who knows what they will find?

It just can't have much of an impact in the long run. The earth will continue doing what it's doing, obviously, and the researchers will continue researching. Nothing that comes about from these emails will stop either of those; it might slow down research by taking away some of it's funding, but it won't stop it.

You want to know how damaging I think it is? It will makes the public even more distrusting of science, basically encouraging anti-intellectualism further. That is the goal of the deniers, their incredulity says they are right even when science says otherwise, so if they shut up the science they can ignore reality for their own.

I say again, unless the emails show that the science is wrong, it can't actually impact the long run that strongly.

And you certainly don't talk like a skeptic, you talk like a denier - using words like "climategate", "warmer", and "alarmist".

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It just can't have much of an impact in the long run. The earth will continue doing what it's doing, obviously, and the researchers will continue researching. Nothing that comes about from these emails will stop either of those; it might slow down research by taking away some of it's funding, but it won't stop it.

I say again, unless the emails show that the science is wrong, it can't actually impact the long run that strongly.

You might be right.
But to dismiss them as nothing as some like to do, is naive.

And you certainly don't talk like a skeptic, you talk like a denier - using words like "climategate", "warmer", and "alarmist".

Climategate seems the accepted term. I don't like it and even started a thread asking for better names. I have yet to see an appropriate replacement.

'Warmer' or 'warmist' seems also an accepted term from where I sit. The pro AGW side love to bandy about their generalisation of 'denier' for anyone who doesn't adhere to their version on the matter. Personally I dislike both words and have said so before. But until I find another noun, it seems ok to me.
I also asked for a better noun in the same thread. So far nothing of value.

There are plenty of alarmists around. For mine, they are the ones on the end of the 'warmist' spectrum. Lets assume they are 5% of 'that side'. It is that 5% and the 5% at the extreme of the 'deniers' that are the real dangers in this imho.
You can think me a denier and I keep getting called that. But all I deny is that the "science is settled" there is far too much debate out there for it to be, and as such, I remain skeptical.

 

[Piggy]

OK. So JREF are Cters too?

You're either going to read the entirety of what I posted or you are not.

So far, you have chosen "not".

 

[Piggy]

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

So you've already assumed what's at issue. That's classic circular reasoning.

You asked for evidence, it was provided, and you rejected it on entirely spurious grounds.

You are offering precisely zero evidence to support even one of your wild claims, including the claim that climate scientists have a "vested interest" in AGW which makes their conclusions suspect.

The links I've provided you offer an in-context explanation of the leaked emails.

If you care to refute that explanation, I'm all ears.

So far, you're offering nothing but more CT.

 

[Piggy]

I am not bound to supply conflicting science data in a non science forum

Oh, that old dogde.

Any port in a storm for a denier.

You asked for the scientific evidence and it was provided.

Now you change your tune.

I've explained precisely why we cannot have any meaningful discussion without reference to the science.

Your fact-free arguments have no reason to be taken seriously by anyone.

 

[Piggy]

Where have I ever said I actually think there is a Conspiracy Theory?

Another dodge.

You are careful not to use the term.

Nevertheless, you invoke CT at every turn.

You disregard the science because it comes from professional scientists, without offering a single shred of evidence that there's any reason to suspect collusion, bribery, or any other sort of chicanery.

Classic CT.

Whether or not you use the term is irrelevant.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Classic CT.

Whether or not you use the term is irrelevant.

This is my last personal address to you.
Your remarks as usual are off topic, self serving hate filled crap. You accuse me of lacking evidence, yet all you do is defer to higher authority to back up your parroted cries of alarm.
You lie constantly and use ad homs with abandon.

Congratulations, you are my first ignore.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Another dodge.

You are careful not to use the term.

Nevertheless, you invoke CT at every turn.

You disregard the science because it comes from professional scientists, without offering a single shred of evidence that there's any reason to suspect collusion, bribery, or any other sort of chicanery.

Classic CT.

Whether or not you use the term is irrelevant.

There's a bit of chicanery exposed in the leaked/hacked/whatever CRU emails. It doesn't really bare much on the science, but they do talk about obfuscating future FOIA documents, beating up people they disagree with, orders to delete emails about specific topics, etc.

 

[varwoche]

In the meantime, it seems there are a number of scientists complaining about their work being suppressed due to the 'boys club' that was peer review process in East Anglia.

For instance?

Here's hoping you don't respond with cites to economists and TV weathermen, as you're prone to do.

 

[gumboot]

Do you have something intelligent to remark about my factually correct post, or will you just keep contributing to the noise?

And no, the russians have not been using the Northern Passage for the simple reason that we didn't have a Northern Passage until now. They had icebreakers making way through the ice, but that was not a Northern Passage, very much by definition.

What's this "Northern Passage" you're referring to?

 

[a_unique_person]

You can think me a denier and I keep getting called that. But all I deny is that the "science is settled" there is far too much debate out there for it to be, and as such, I remain skeptical.

There is a lot of debate about creationism/evolution too. Just having a debate is not a logical reason for thinking something should be taken seriously.

 

[Megalodon]

What's this "Northern Passage" you're referring to?

This one.

 

[Piggy]

There's a bit of chicanery exposed in the leaked/hacked/whatever CRU emails. It doesn't really bare much on the science, but they do talk about obfuscating future FOIA documents, beating up people they disagree with, orders to delete emails about specific topics, etc.

Well, I suppose I can just refer you back to the Real Climate discussion and the Nature article. If you haven't seen the links I can repost them.

The grousing about publication was centered around whether it was worth putting out there, from what I can tell. I believe there was similar sniping about Behe's article on irreducible complexity.

There doesn't appear to be anything ilicit about email deletions, or the FOIA issue.

So far I've seen no "there" there.

 

[shadron]

The first part of a two-part rebuttal of "Climategate":



(I hate the name as well, but it is convenient to have a single, unambiguous handle for the whole hacked data squabble.)

 

[varwoche]

For instance?

Bumping for A.A.Alfie.

Are you going to backup your claim? Who are the scientists (not economists, not TV weathermen) who have complained about being suppressed?

 

[a_unique_person]

Bumping for A.A.Alfie.

Are you going to backup your claim? Who are the scientists (not economists, not TV weathermen) who have complained about being suppressed?

You won't get alfie to talk in any more than generalities. He is an evidence free zone.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You won't get alfie to talk in any more than generalities. He is an evidence free zone.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Have we seen this petition yet?
A few scientists here who don't think the science is up to scratch.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/skeptics-in-wonderland

Something else about the scientists who object and how they are silenced.

 

[shadron]

The first part of a two-part rebuttal of "Climategate":



(I hate the name as well, but it is convenient to have a single, unambiguous handle for the whole hacked data squabble.)

Part 2: