Conservatives and climate change

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

no i usually don't read blogs¹. ...but still, even if Jones and Mann are excluded from the science, it doesn't falsify the theory². therefor scientific evidence would be needed³. and not some hacked emails that are usually ripped out of context⁴.

and pls don't foget to answer my question regarding your post about similar warmings of the past. thanks⁵

1. Then drop the "debunked" claim (as in, "That Jones and Mann withheld data and calculations from McIntyre is debunked"). To say "I don't do blogs" is equivalent to a prosecutor refusing to interview a victim of assault. McIntyre is the aggrieved party.
Or, refuse to look through the telescope. Those purported moons around Jupiter are artifacts of the apparatus.
2. Without evidence, theory is hot air. Mann's and Jones' evidence is suspect.
3. We agree, here.
4. How would you know that the emails are "usually ripped out of context" if you "usually don't read blogs"?
What "context" improves this?
5. Again, I might spend some effort to answer your question if I understand it. It looks garbled. Please rephrase it.

 

[DC]

1. Then drop the "debunked" claim (as in, "That Jones and Mann withheld data and calculations from McIntyre is debunked"). To say "I don't do blogs" is equivalent to a prosecutor refusing to interview a victim of assault. McIntyre is the aggrieved party.
Or, refuse to look through the telescope. Those purported moons around Jupiter are artifacts of the apparatus.
2. Without evidence, theory is hot air. Mann's and Jones' evidence is suspect.
3. We agree, here.
4. How would you know that the emails are "usually ripped out of context" if you "usually don't read blogs"?
What "context" improves this?
5. Again, I might spend some effort to answer your question if I understand it. It looks garbled. Please rephrase it.

can you show me where i claimed "That Jones and Mann withheld data and calculations from McIntyre is debunked"

2. as i already said, they or their evidence does not change the scinece. they are merely a part of it. you think without them all the other scientists in this field from around the world have no evidence for the theory?

4. for example, http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/
then tere are also such things as newspapers. and then there is also such things as reports from investigations.

5. the context of the Hide the Decline mails changes everything.

you said we have had similar warmings in the past, i asked you wich warming period in the past had first rising Co² levels and then was followed by a rise in temperatures as we are currently observing.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...The EPA investigated "unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy" and declared those allegations to be "not true".

Just read the material at the link you provided. "Not true" does not address the "conspiracy" allegation, which is well-substantiated in the emails.

 

[uke2se]

1. Then drop the "debunked" claim (as in, "That Jones and Mann withheld data and calculations from McIntyre is debunked"). To say "I don't do blogs" is equivalent to a prosecutor refusing to interview a victim of assault. McIntyre is the aggrieved party.
Or, refuse to look through the telescope. Those purported moons around Jupiter are artifacts of the apparatus.
2. Without evidence, theory is hot air. Mann's and Jones' evidence is suspect.
3. We agree, here.
4. How would you know that the emails are "usually ripped out of context" if you "usually don't read blogs"?
What "context" improves this?
5. Again, I might spend some effort to answer your question if I understand it. It looks garbled. Please rephrase it.

Everything you post has been debunked. Try reading all the posts in the thread instead of every other one and you will see that.

 

[Trakar]

1. Then drop the "debunked" claim (as in, "That Jones and Mann withheld data and calculations from McIntyre is debunked"). To say "I don't do blogs" is equivalent to a prosecutor refusing to interview a victim of assault. McIntyre is the aggrieved party.

A more appropriate analogy would be a prosecutor refusing to use the "MAD's Special Edition of Legal Lampoons" to be cited and referenced as a legal guide to court procedures and statute definition.

2. Without evidence, theory is hot air. Mann's and Jones' evidence is suspect.

Please cite the mainstream scientific group or body which recognizes the assertion that Mann's and Jones' evidence is suspect.

4. How would you know that the emails are "usually ripped out of context" if you "usually don't read blogs"?

Are you seriously trying to imply that the only way to find accurate facts and understandings is through reading internet blogs? How about a read through of the various official investigations of the issue, and the reports/analyses put out by the mainstream scientific organizations?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

...The EPA investigated "unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy" and declared those allegations to be "not true".

Just read the material at the link you provided. "Not true" does not address the "conspiracy" allegation, which is well-substantiated in the emails.

The link I provided rebuts the conspiracy you continue to allege:

Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.

Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.

Myth: The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibility of climate change science overall.

Fact: Climate change is real and it is happening now....

Myth: The CRU emails and several errors found in the most recent IPCC report undermine the credibility of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Fact: ....The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.

Please note the parts I highlighted.

1. Then drop the "debunked" claim (as in, "That Jones and Mann withheld data and calculations from McIntyre is debunked").

The EPA dismissed that claim thusly:

Comment (2-65):
....The commenter states that the compilers were extremely reluctant to release their computer programs and data. The commenter alleges that the journal Nature failed to require the authors to produce the data; it was only after numerous requests by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick that Mann et al. (authors of the original “hockey stick” study, Mann et al., 1998) eventually parted with the information necessary to allow a proper, independent, academic review of the graph that the UN had, according to the commenter, been willing to accept without any real peer review.....

Response (2-65):

....Regarding the allegation that Nature failed to require Mann et al. to make public their programs and data, we note the commenter does not substantiate this claim, and EPA does not consider the data policies of an independent academic journal germane to this rulemaking. We also note, however, that the commenter indicates that the data were released, so the commenter’s concern would appear to have been addressed....

 

[mhaze]

....
The EPA dismissed that claim thusly:

You clearly do have an axe to grind.

Why should anyone care if the EPA "dismissed a claim"? They clearly state that they don't care what the Nature editorial policy is.

What does that have to do with something being "debunked"?

Nothing.

 

[johnny karate]

You clearly do have an axe to grind.

Why should anyone care if the EPA "dismissed a claim"? They clearly state that they don't care what the Nature editorial policy is.

What does that have to do with something being "debunked"?

Nothing.

If you're referring to "Climategate". It was debunked. Quite thoroughly.

 

[BenBurch]

If you're referring to "Climategate". It was debunked. Quite thoroughly.

By people who had nothing to gain by clearing them, too.

And when the idiot deniers asked a scientist on their own side to re-evaluate the data, he found the data to be honest; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature

See, they erred in not finding a scientist who would say whatever the Koch brothers paid him to say. Instead they found an honest scientist who was skeptical, but who was going to honestly go wherever the data lead.

Data is anathema to the Right.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You clearly do have an axe to grind.

Why should anyone care if the EPA "dismissed a claim"? They clearly state that they don't care what the Nature editorial policy is.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick asked me to "read the material at the link" I provided, and claimed that his conspiracy allegation was "well-substantiated in the emails."

I demonstrated that, contrary to Malcolm Kirkpatrick's claim, the conspiracy he alleges was denied by the EPA web page I had cited.

I also quoted the EPA's dismissal of a closely related claim. Appendix B of the EPA's Response to Public Comments; Volume 2: Validity of Observed and Measured Data quotes the University of East Anglia's statement on CRU Data Availability. In that statement, CRU noted that some of the "data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists." The CRU documents that fact with a link to a PDF file containing copies of several letters that contain explicit restrictions on release of donated data to third parties. Here are some examples of those restrictions:

The data are to be used by the Climatic Research Unit for a specific research project sponsored by the NERC....The data will not be used unauthorised for any other project and will not be passed onto any third party.

The disk and the following precipitation data are sent to you without charge. The condition is that you do not use them commercially or give them to a third party.

UKMO data / software so obtained may be used solely for the purpose for which they were supplied. They may not be used for any other projects unless specific prior permission has been obtained in writing from the UKMO by a NERC Data Centre. Note that this applies even for other bona fide academic work....

Data sets must not be passed on to third parties under any circumstances....

Please do not supply this data to third parties, unless authorized by us.

Bolding as in the original.

To those who do not have an axe to grind, it should be obvious that CRU had reason to doubt whether it had a legal right to release all of that data to third parties.

 

[BenBurch]

...

To those who do not have an axe to grind, it should be obvious that CRU had reason to doubt whether it had a legal right to release all of that data to third parties.

Why should people who committed felonies to obtain those emails care about legality or give that reason any credence?

 

[mhaze]

Malcolm Kirkpatrick asked me to "read the material at the link" I provided.....

blah blah blah.

All I know is that if someone claimed your dog was purple, and I told you I didn't care what color your dog was, you could rightfully say that I had "dismissed the claim the dog was purple".

And I know that has no relation to what color the dog was. Was the "claim debunked" that you had a purple dog? Nope.

So...are you trying to practice being disingenuous?

Certainly Malcolm was right in suggesting that you "drop the 'debunked' " claim.

Oh, and a final comment. You do know you are lecturing people (in that VERY amusing stern tone, thank you kindly) who have read all the source documents and legal papers relating to matters such as this?

I do hope so. Continue being amusing. It's hard but not impossible. You CAN put both feet in your mouth at the same time.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A more appropriate analogy would be a prosecutor refusing to use the "MAD's Special Edition of Legal Lampoons" to be cited and referenced as a legal guide to court procedures and statute definition1.
Please cite the mainstream scientific group or body which recognizes the assertion that Mann's and Jones' evidence is suspect.
Are you seriously trying to imply that the only way to find accurate facts and understandings is through reading internet blogs? How about a read through of the various official investigations of the issue, and the reports/analyses put out by the mainstream scientific organizations2?

1. If the aggrieved party is MAD magazine, inc., yes, it would be required to interview MAD executives.
2. The ONLY way to determine if Mann and Jones withheld data and calculations from McIntyre would be to interview Mann, Jones, AND McIntrye, or to review their correspondence.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

blah blah blah.

...snip...

So...are you trying to practice being disingenuous?

I am not worthy.

Oh, and a final comment. You do know you are lecturing people (in that VERY amusing stern tone, thank you kindly)

On the Internet, no one knows I'm rolling on the floor laughing.

who have read all the source documents and legal papers relating to matters such as this?

But pretend they don't exist.

 

[mhaze]

I am not worthy.


On the Internet, no one knows I'm rolling on the floor laughing.


But pretend they don't exist.

Good signs, all.



Advanced cases of climatolobotomized agwozoa, as we see here often, lack a sense of humor.

 

[bit_pattern]

Good signs, all.



Advanced cases of climatolobotomized agwozoa, as we see here often, lack a sense of humor.

Do you actually think what you're doing here is humorous? Gee, you must be a real hoot at dinner parties

 

[mhaze]

Do you actually think what you're doing here is humorous? Gee, you must be a real hoot at dinner parties

Definitely lacking a sense of humor there. You in pretty deep with the cult, I take it?

 

[Furcifer]

Sowing doubts on the consensus of AGW for one.

Religious euphemisms, how appropriate.

Which tells me you don't acually read the science despite your insistance that you do. I think you read WhatsUpHisButt and nothing else pertaining to climate science.

Which tells me your comprehension and deduction skills are sub par.

He did deny science, and it was shown in this thread that he did. That you can't see it is because you are in denial.

"He did I tell yah, he did".

No, all you did was show he participated in a scientific study and then objected to the methodology. You have not shown a single instance of "anti-science" like you claimed. All you're spewing is rhetoric. I'm sorry you don't see that.

Yet you haven't proposed any alternate hypothesis. One alternative hypothesis has been posted in this thread, and that was falsified years ago. Thus, there is no current alternate hypothesis that stands up to the evidence. That you can't see that is because you are in denial.

Nonsense.

Because you don't know about/understand the evidence.

Nonsense. More unsubstantiated claims. You continue to spew rhetoric.

If the person you are talking to claims "You just don't understand" he might be an alarmist. Or the Fresh Prince.

CO2 effects on the atmosphere has been known for about 150 years. Hardly "in its infancy".

That's not what we are talking about. Try to pay attention.

It's nice seeing that your objective is to attempt to delay addressing the problem, though.

More rhetoric. Alarmists are known for claiming "We're not doing anything! eleventy too!!!"

Everyone knows this isn't the case. From CFL's to electric cars, to R100 homes and high efficiency furnaces, people are doing their part to reduce emissions.

Any claim we're "delaying" or "not doing anything" is an alarmist LIE. The sky isn't falling chicken little, we're on it.

No, it's contrarian and denial. You're not a skeptic. You show that with every post you make.

Alarmists rhetoric. It's textbook.

With every post you make you show just how irrational alarmists are. This is exactly why general public doesn't care about Global Warming and popular opinion is waning. It's a joke most people don't want to be the butt end of. Ultimately alarmists do more harm than good.

Read some climate science instead of these pseudoscience websites on the internet. Get outside and take a look around, it's not as bad as you imagine it to be. The World is not yours to save. People have been claiming the end of the world is coming since forever. They were wrong. Learn from their mistakes.

 

[Furcifer]

I hope quoting myself is ok.

No, because this is what we call "hearsay". Quote him instead of quoting yourself saying what he said.

I don't know what his "ideology" is. Can you please site what Anthony Watts "ideology" is. I don't follow him or his website enough to be that familiar with it. Nor do most of the people on the JREF I hope.


I'm curious how "denying" the accuracy of the temperature record makes you a "denialist". This doesn't sound like science, this sounds very much like religion. In science people are free to question the validity of something without reprisal. It's within religion that "dissenters" are usually stoned and cast out.

 

[daenku32]

Can you please site what Anthony Watts "ideology" is.

Personally, I think he is simply a contrarian. And I think he does it because it drives a lot of traffic to his site. Conservatives have accepted denialism as their ideological party plank and that will mean millions of customers to anyone with scientific credentials who wishes to use those credentials to pad their skepticism to the scientific consensus.