Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[a_unique_person]

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

I keep saying the same think so that you might eventually get the point I am making

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.

The Australian Skeptics does not have an official position in the climate change debate. This is a question being decided by the Science community, and it is not our role to be arbiters of Science. It is up to each individual to make up their own mind. Theories in Science are accepted and rejected on the available evidence, not decided by numbers of people in favour, or by statements from authorities. However, in deciding on who is more likely to be correct, we would have more confidence in information that comes from peer reviewed journals and from scientists working in the field.

http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Statement_on_Climate_Change

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I keep saying the same think so that you might eventually get the point I am making

http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Statement_on_Climate_Change

Gullible it is.

 

[varwoche]

I gave you the point

Fair enough. We can move on now knowing there are precisely zero known instances of scientists being suppressed by East Anglia, and that you were just using them as a convenient whipping boy.

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

Except that's not the bit I take issue with. What I take issue with is "How is it you can accept without question?" My sole contribution has been asking you to support your (false) claim. You don't know what I accept or don't accept.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Fair enough. We can move on now knowing there are precisely zero known instances of scientists being suppressed by East Anglia, and that you were just using them as a convenient whipping boy. .

Zero known instances. I don't believe in absolutes here. If they supressed information they didn't like, and if they actively sought to discredit other papers and opinions, anything remains possible.

Except that's not the bit I take issue with. What I take issue with is "How is it you can accept without question?" My sole contribution has been asking you to support your (false) claim. You don't know what I accept or don't accept.

Fair enough.
I did make that assumption given your support of others' comments.
What then is your position? Did I guess right or wrong?

 

[Piggy]

Zero known instances.

And the man denies being a conspiracy theorist.

This is classic textbook CT.

The absence of any evidence is, in fact, evidence of a cover-up of the evidence!

By that token, Alfie is a mass murderer. After all, there's no evidence that he is, which means that he must be covering up the evidence. And why would he be covering up evidence if he were not a mass murderer?!

 

[gumboot]

This one.

That's just a map. Rather unhelpful.

Are you perhaps referring to either the Northwest Passage or the Northern Sea Route? Neither of which, incidentally, has opened "for the first time ever" any time in recent history.

 

[a_unique_person]

Gullible it is.

Have you read and understood what the Australian Skeptic association is saying?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Have you read and understood what the Australian Skeptic association is saying?

Yep, but they are "wrong" - just the way JREF is "wrong" - and as such, their position means nothing either. Fair enough?

They don't have a postion. They are neither skeptical nor gullible.

You are either gullible or idealogical.

I'm going gullible.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yep, but they are "wrong" - just the way JREF is "wrong" - and as such, their position means nothing either. Fair enough?

They don't have a postion. They are neither skeptical nor gullible.

You are either gullible or idealogical.

I'm going gullible.

No, I want you to explain in your own words what they have said, and why it is wrong. No bald assertions without any logic, please.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, I want you to explain in your own words what they have said, and why it is wrong. No bald assertions without any logic, please.

Before I bother to write out what you want, just tell me, are they talking about climate change or AGW?
There is a difference you know? And they have not been specific.

 

[a_unique_person]

Before I bother to write out what you want, just tell me, are they talking about climate change or AGW?
There is a difference you know? And they have not been specific.

AGW is a subset of climate change.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

AGW is a subset of climate change.

They have "no official position on climate change".
But they have "greater confidence" in peer reviewed work.

Now, three things.
- They do not say they blindly follow the scientists and
- Was this written before or after climategate?
- Again, they do not differentiate between climate change and AGW. As you are aware there are some that still say the world isn't warming at all. This is debated also, however I hold no value in that postion.

So, gullible or idealogical?

“Scepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
Adolph Huxley

 

[a_unique_person]

They have "no official position on climate change".
But they have "greater confidence" in peer reviewed work.

Now, three things.
- They do not say they blindly follow the scientists and
- Was this written before or after climategate?
- Again, they do not differentiate between climate change and AGW. As you are aware there are some that still say the world isn't warming at all. This is debated also, however I hold no value in that postion.

So, gullible or idealogical?

“Scepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
Adolph Huxley

I already said I don't blindly follow scientist. Within the limits of my ability to understand the science, I have read up on physical basis, the observed changes, the model projections, the physical forcings, the 'fingerprints'. Nothing blind about that.
It matters not that it was written before 'climategate', as the scientists investigating AGW follow one of the principles of scientific research, independent replication. Take away CRU, you still have many independent centres of research, including the CSIRO, who come up with the same results.

You don't seem to hold a position on anything much to do with AGW. That isn't scepticism. The statement by the sceptics is the logical position to take if you don't have the skills and resources to come to an informed decision, go with the best authority that is available. It could still be wrong, but it's the least likely 'opinion' to be wrong.

Ideological? LOL.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I already said I don't blindly follow scientist. Within the limits of my ability to understand the science, I have read up on physical basis, the observed changes, the model projections, the physical forcings, the 'fingerprints'. Nothing blind about that.
It matters not that it was written before 'climategate', as the scientists investigating AGW follow one of the principles of scientific research, independent replication. Take away CRU, you still have many independent centres of research, including the CSIRO, who come up with the same results.

Ideological? LOL.

Fine, and I'm genuinely glad it's not ideology.
My first estimation was right.

By your own logic; it is blind gullibility.

 

[a_unique_person]

Fine, and I'm genuinely glad it's not ideology.
My first estimation was right.

By your own logic; it is blind gullibility.

LOL. How old are you alfie?

 

[Megalodon]

That's just a map. Rather unhelpful.

Are you perhaps referring to either the Northwest Passage or the Northern Sea Route? Neither of which, incidentally, has opened "for the first time ever" any time in recent history.

It opened for the first time in recorded history. We've gone through this before in this forum. If you have evidence of anyone using an Arctic open sea passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or vice-versa, please let me know.

 

[varwoche]

What then is your position? Did I guess right or wrong?

My general read on "climategate" is that it consists of smoke/stupidity versus fire/malfeasance, however that's an interim opinion based on incomplete knowledge of the facts.

More important in the grand scheme, it's clear to me that the incident has virtually no bearing on our overall understanding of GW science.

 

[BenBurch]

That's just a map. Rather unhelpful.

Are you perhaps referring to either the Northwest Passage or the Northern Sea Route? Neither of which, incidentally, has opened "for the first time ever" any time in recent history.

Wrong. Northwest passage never was at "open" state, ie less than 10% sea ice over a navigable passage, at ANY time in the historical era until two years ago.

EVER.

The fact that special vessels could force a passage or that a small vessel that can resist ice pressure could make a several-year-long passage notwithstanding; they were designed to make the passage without the passage being technically "open."

 

[Piggy]

LOL. How old are you alfie?

Did you notice that he dodged your request in post 409?

 

[BenBurch]

No, I want you to explain in your own words what they have said, and why it is wrong. No bald assertions without any logic, please.

Yes, please do!