Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[varwoche]

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.

Your goalposts didn't merely move. Geez, they've been re-located to a different zip code.

This inane petition has nothing to do with your claim. Surely you know that this sort of evasion won't fly. Here's a reminder:

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

Can you back up this claim? Names please. Try to focus on what you actually claimed. (What a concept.)

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Can you back up this claim? Names please. Try to focus on what you actually claimed. (What a concept.)

You're right. I said "work", perhaps I should have said information. That come through loud and clear in some climategate emails. Even other scientists are concerned about that and citations and evidence has already been provided. Please check your facts and previous posts, this has been covered already.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/

But here's an example of some ham fisted tactics by a scientist when asked some inconvenient questions.
How you think there is no supression or avoidance in some quarters is beyond me to be honest.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

Some more....
I know it's MacIntyre that you hate so much, but still, there are questions....

To naively think that everything a climate scientist is true is just gullible imho.

This is a skeptics forum. How is it you can accept without question?
Or is there something more ideological going on that you care not to admit?

 

[varwoche]

You're right. I said "work", perhaps I should have said information.

OK, information. Go ahead, name the scientists who have had their "information" suppressed by East Anglia.

That come through loud and clear in some climategate emails. Even other scientists are concerned about that and citations and evidence has already been provided. Please check your facts and previous posts, this has been covered already.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/

But here's an example of some ham fisted tactics by a scientist when asked some inconvenient questions.

Nope, not even close. This is not an example of a scientist being suppressed -- by "the boys club" at East Anglia or by anyone else for that matter.

How you think there is no supression or avoidance in some quarters is beyond me to be honest.

You're the one who made a claim, not me. You're evading again.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
Some more....
I know it's MacIntyre that you hate so much, but still, there are questions....

I asked for examples of suppressed scientists. And you give me a whining oil industry businessman? Unimpressive in the extreme.

To naively think that everything a climate scientist is true is just gullible imho.

You said a number of scientists were suppressed. But you can't even provide one lonely example? It's increasingly clear you're making stuff up.

This is a skeptics forum. How is it you can accept without question? Or is there something more ideological going on that you care not to admit?

Evasiveness this clumsy isn't a pretty sight.

I accept that you're unable to backup your claim. I also accept that you aren't forthright enough to admit it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

OK, information. Go ahead, name the scientists who have had their "information" suppressed by East Anglia..

The point to you...
My words may have been 'ill advised'. I should have used "allegedly".
The fact remains however that there are claims and the validity of them will be borne out in the investigations that will no doubt ensue.

Here's a bit more though dates 2007. The allegations were around long before climategate

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html

Nope, not even close. This is not an example of a scientist being suppressed -- by "the boys club" at East Anglia or by anyone else for that matter. ..

Well it wasn't supposed to be.
Am I not allowed to introduce new material to the discussion? Or are you the 'gatekeeper' that I should be checking with first?
Care to comment?

I asked for examples of suppressed scientists. And you give me a whining oil industry businessman? Unimpressive in the extreme.

So I should send you a PM before I post something new?
Care to comment on the info?


I ask again...
This is a skeptics forum. How is it you can accept without question? Or is there something more ideological going on that you care not to admit?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

There is this.

I'll keep posting them as I find them, OK?

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

There is this.

I'll keep posting them as I find them, OK?

He could publish what he wanted. I don't know what use he would be to polar bears, since he can't tell the difference between their numbers rising because of hunting bans, and the threat to them from the loss of ice.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

He could publish what he wanted. I don't know what use he would be to polar bears, since he can't tell the difference between their numbers rising because of hunting bans, and the threat to them from the loss of ice.

You would be right... "You don't know.."

Now about those emails being private, care to respond?

 

[a_unique_person]

To naively think that everything a climate scientist is true is just gullible imho.

This is a skeptics forum. How is it you can accept without question?
Or is there something more ideological going on that you care not to admit?

I have spent years catching up on the case for AGW, i don't accept anything blindley. I have listened to the same objections to AGW year after year, and chased them all down to see if they are true or not. They are either really stupid objections that are pathetic, or a few reasonable ones that don't hold up. The 'blindley' part is just another baseless assertion by you, without, once again, any attempt at seeking out evidence to back yourself up. The very first thing I thought of when I heard about it was that i still remembered the 'ice age is coming' story that had been going around for a short time. This story has legs on it, each IPCC report just confirms that evidence, the update before copenhagen, ditto. The sea is warming faster than predicted, and rising at the top level of IPCC predictions because of that. By concentrating on the politics, you are missing out on the evidence.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I have spent years catching up on the case for AGW, i don't accept anything blindley.
(snip)
By concentrating on the politics, you are missing out on the evidence.

Good for you.
But the question wasn't asked of you now was it?

I look at evidence, I understand some of it and some other, not so much.

But what I do understand is, it's something only a climate scientist can get anyway. Right?

So I am confused. You say you don't follow blindly. How can you not if it is the climate scientists who are the only ones with the knowledge? Surely your efforts at comprehending are futile.

That is why I suggest the warmers follow blindly. Beacause, if no-one else is qualified to comment (including you) it must be blind faith in them.

 

[a_unique_person]

Good for you.
But the question wasn't asked of you now was it?

I look at evidence, I understand some of it and some other, not so much.

But what I do understand is, it's something only a climate scientist can get anyway. Right?

So I am confused. You say you don't follow blindly. How can you not if it is the climate scientists who are the only ones with the knowledge? Surely your efforts at comprehending are futile.

That is why I suggest the warmers follow blindly. Beacause, if no-one else is qualified to comment (including you) it must be blind faith in them.

You always seem to argue in logical dead ends. Non sequitors. Jest because I can't understand all of climate science, I can understand none of it. Not so, I can read up on how the physics of radiation absorption and re-emmision works, and it makes sense to me. I can't do the maths on it, but I can see how it impedes the emission of radiation from the earth to space, effectively warming it. If you ask Steve Mcintyre directly, he will agree with that. For some reason, he keeps very quiet on it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You always seem to argue in logical dead ends. Non sequitors. Jest because I can't understand all of climate science, I can understand none of it. Not so, I can read up on how the physics of radiation absorption and re-emmision works, and it makes sense to me. I can't do the maths on it, but I can see how it impedes the emission of radiation from the earth to space, effectively warming it. If you ask Steve Mcintyre directly, he will agree with that. For some reason, he keeps very quiet on it.

Hang on. That explains nothing....

You keep saying the only people who understand it are the climate scientists and any other opinions don't matter.

How then are you not blindly following?
By your own logic you can't get it.

One can now only assume that it is ideaology, not your scientific (lack of) knowledge that drives yours and others reasoning.

You seem to want it both ways here when you say "I'm not blindly following" but couple it with "only the special scientists can understand it".

Sounds rather 'cultish' to me.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hang on. That explains nothing....

You keep saying the only people who understand it are the climate scientists and any other opinions don't matter.

How then are you not blindly following?
By your own logic you can't get it.

One can now only assume that it is ideaology, not your scientific (lack of) knowledge that drives yours and others reasoning.

You seem to want it both ways here when you say "I'm not blindly following" but couple it with "only the special scientists can understand it".

Sounds rather 'cultish' to me.

I am saying a peition that seeks to use the authority of scientists can't just sign up anyone who claims to be a scientist, or even is a scientist, if they don't have scientific authority. Scientific authority comes from publishing in that area of science. Otherwise, you are just asking someone their opinion. If you want my opinion, I can tell you I have spent a lot of time reading up on the arguments for and against, especially the IPCC reports, but also topics on realclimate and other sources. AGW is consistent, it has a physical basis, it has been developed over the course of more than a century.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I am saying a peition that seeks to use the authority of scientists can't just sign up anyone who claims to be a scientist, or even is a scientist, if they don't have scientific authority. Scientific authority comes from publishing in that area of science. Otherwise, you are just asking someone their opinion. If you want my opinion, I can tell you I have spent a lot of time reading up on the arguments for and against, especially the IPCC reports, but also topics on realclimate and other sources. AGW is consistent, it has a physical basis, it has been developed over the course of more than a century.

But you still can't understand it (the science). Therefore, all there is left for you is to blindly believe what they tell you.
Simple.
Your words damn any opinion that is outside of climate science.

I am starting to get a handle on where you guys are coming from.
It really is making more and more sense.
No wonder no-one (you) wanted me to talk the politics of it.

 

[varwoche]

The point to you...
My words may have been 'ill advised'. I should have used "allegedly".

You would still need to point to the allegations, and even that you've fallen short of. Here, let me help:

I speculate there are a number of scientists people complaining about their work information being suppressed due to the 'boys club' that was peer review process in East Anglia someone or another.

The fact remains however that there are claims and the validity of them will be borne out in the investigations that will no doubt ensue.

Hopefully so. But in the meantime, just because someone does something wrong doesn't mean that you have free license to smear them with every misdeed in the universe, real or imagined.

Here's a bit more though dates 2007. The allegations were around long before climategate

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html

You're only digging yourself in deeper here. This article is in diametric opposition to the point you're trying to make. (Do you even bother to read the stuff you link to?)

Also, it would greatly enhance our communication if you'd quote the relevant bits instead of just posting naked links. As a side benefit, this might help you focus on the actual words rather than your preconceived notions.

Am I not allowed to introduce new material to the discussion? Or are you the 'gatekeeper' that I should be checking with first?

Do what you will. But when you use "new material" as a way to evade a specific question about a specific claim, I'm not going to take the bait. For instance:

This is a skeptics forum. How is it you can accept without question? Or is there something more ideological going on that you care not to admit?

This is not only evasive. It's patently dishonest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

There is this.

I'll keep posting them as I find them, OK?

Here's a quiz for you. This polar bear researcher was disallowed to attend the event by:
A. The "boys club" at East Anglia
B. The UN
C. His former colleagues in the Polar Bear Specialist Group

Answer: C
Former, as in he wasn't even a member at the time. This is a joke.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Do what you will. But when you use "new material" as a way to evade a specific question about a specific claim, I'm not going to take the bait. For instance:

I gave you the point and in the process have raised some other items and observations relating to the OP. You care not to discuss them and yet accuse me of being evasive.

This is not only evasive. It's patently dishonest.

How is it dishonest?
"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it."

Ideology seems to play a major part in the warming movement and there are plenty of examples both in and out of the climategate emails.

Couple these things with the continued claims that "only climate scientists can understand it" and "no-one else has a valid opinion" means that the only way you can conclude AGW is real is by believing the priests.

That is the blind faith born of ideology and it is far removed from skepticism.

 

[a_unique_person]

But you still can't understand it (the science). Therefore, all there is left for you is to blindly believe what they tell you.
Simple.
Your words damn any opinion that is outside of climate science.

Frankly, yes. I can find you any number of opinions on climate science, all equally worthless as evidence on climate science. I have tried to engage you on the science and you refused point blank, so I am left with the politics. Which you won't talk about because you want to talk about the science.

I am starting to get a handle on where you guys are coming from.
It really is making more and more sense.
No wonder no-one (you) wanted me to talk the politics of it.

LOL.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Frankly, yes. I can find you any number of opinions on climate science, all equally worthless as evidence on climate science.

OK,
So we agree, no-one is entitled to an opinion except climate scientists, therefore you are blindly following.

I have tried to engage you on the science and you refused point blank, so I am left with the politics. Which you won't talk about because you want to talk about the science.

There is no point discussing the science for the reasons you have already mentioned - no-ones opinion is worth a damn unless they are a climate scientist.
Where have I avoided the political (or social)?

 

[a_unique_person]

OK,
So we agree, no-one is entitled to an opinion except climate scientists, therefore you are blindly following.

I said anyone is entitled to an opinion, if you want someone to speak with scientific authority, that is another matter.

 

[BenBurch]

Nobody who is not a scientist working in that field, however, has a sufficiently informed opinion to attack the science without being viewed as a crank.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I said anyone is entitled to an opinion, if you want someone to speak with scientific authority, that is another matter.

Then every single opinion is invalid except the AGW scientists. I understand this, you keep saying the same thing but in different ways

Nobody who is not a scientist working in that field, however, has a sufficiently informed opinion to attack the science without being viewed as a crank.

And therefore, not being scientists in the field, you blindly believe what they tell you.

So, the way I figure it, you are either completely gullible* or you are guided by ideology.

There is no ther way around it.

*I say gullible because, gullible is the opposite to skeptical.