• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives and climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
W.D.Clinger said:
The editorial goes on to note that Wegman and Said are still being investigated by George Mason University.

The journal's investigation is complete, and resulted in retraction of the paper.

At this point, it would be remarkably foolish for anyone to question Mann's integrity by citing Wegman and Said.

So I wasn't the least bit surprised when Malcolm Kirkpatrick did it.
Click to expand...

LOL you beat me to the post button.

It’s still worth repeating, that not only did Wegamn and Said commit plagiarism, they plagiarised Wikipedia in what was supposed to be a peer reviewed paper.
 
im sure now that Malcolm Kirkpatrick knows it , he will not trust those people anymore. :)
 
DC said:
im sure now that Malcolm Kirkpatrick knows it , he will not trust those people anymore.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia? Depends on the topic. In general, trust is a matter of degree. In general, I will initially trust more people who write under their real names. And conduct a civil discussion. The contrary is an indication of bad faith. Not conclusive, I admit. But if they had a good argument, would they hide and use calumny?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Interglacial cycles. Again, I was not alive 350,000 years ago, so I just have to take someone's word for it. Maybe you will deny the science?
Click to expand...

i don't deny the science. do you?

Why do glacial periods end abruptly?

Notice the asymmetric shape of the Dome Fuji temperature record, with abrupt warmings shown in yellow preceding more gradual coolings (Figure 3). Warming at the end of glacial periods tends to happen more abruptly than the increase in solar insolation. There are several positive feedbacks that are responsible for this. One is the ice-albedo feedback. A second feedback involves atmospheric CO2. Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles show that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Figure 3), in part because more CO2 was stored in the deep ocean due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain low temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming.
Click to expand...

and do you see now why those are not similar warming periods?

can you imagen what happens when we keep pumping CO² into the atmosphere wich leads to a rise in temperatures wich then will lead to release of even more CO²?
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1. If the aggrieved party is MAD magazine, inc., yes, it would be required to interview MAD executives.
Click to expand...

LOL,...hardly, but thank you for illustrating the absurd.

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.
Click to expand...


Ludicrous and wrong in both direction of investigation and proposed method of investigation. There are many ways to investigate this assertion without interviewing McIntyre, but these investigations were not focussed on McIntyre and his unsupported assertions and actions (though perhaps they should have been, especially given his apparent connections to at least one of the "persons of interest" in regards to the ongoing criminal investigation of the CRU computer hack incident.

...Both Tattersall and a US-based climate sceptic blogger known as Jeff Id said they had received a "formal notice" stating that their blogging platform WordPress.com had been asked by the US Department of Justice's criminal division, dated 9 December, to preserve "all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession" related to their blogs as well as to Climate Audit, a climate sceptic blog run by a Canadian mining consultant called Steve McIntyre...
Click to expand...

The issue of the independent investigations was not, and should not have been, whether Mann and Jones did McIntyre dirty. If McIntyre felt that he personally had been done wrong by Mann and Jones, he should have done what you recommended the climate scientists who were liabled and slandered by deniers do, he should have lawyered up and sued them. Unless the claims and assertions are both without foundational evidentiary support and there is (apparently - given the statements of the numerous investigating bodies) no evidentiary support that there is, or was, any conspiracy or collusion by Jones (/CRU scientists) or Mann (/rest of global climate science community) to behave improperly with regards to issues of climate science, or with respect to their academic/professional comportment.

That you, and McIntyre disagree with these multiple independent assessments of the situation, is largely without bearing on the issues at hand. Though they do go a long way toward supporting the "grassy knoller" image that is increasingly apparent in the science denial-o-sphere contingent.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Wikipedia? Depends on the topic. In general, trust is a matter of degree. In general, I will initially trust more people who write under their real names. And conduct a civil discussion. The contrary is an indication of bad faith. Not conclusive, I admit. But if they had a good argument, would they hide and use calumny?
Click to expand...

im a huge fan of Wikipedia, i have no problem with people, even scinetist using wikipedia, it is a very good website, especially as it contains dirct links to sources that usualy backup the claims made. sure there are some articles that are junk, but they don't last long.

but i was more thinking that you would have trouble with the dishonesty of plagiarism.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Interglacial cycles. Again, I was not alive 350,000 years ago, so I just have to take someone's word for it.
Click to expand...

Nope. Climate changes from glacial-interglacial or interglacial to glacial are much slower than the current rate of climate change. It’s true we can’t rule out periods of faster change within that period that rival today but neither can that be confirmed.

Cooling in an OD event may be as fast as the current warming trend, but the best current evidence suggests that these are isolated to one hemisphere and are not global changes.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Wikipedia? Depends on the topic. In general, trust is a matter of degree. In general, I will initially trust more people who write under their real names. And conduct a civil discussion. The contrary is an indication of bad faith. Not conclusive, I admit. But if they had a good argument, would they hide and use calumny?
Click to expand...

You utterly missed what happened.

It's not that they wrote in Wikipedia. It's that they STOLE other people's work from Wikipedia and claimed it as their own, and published it as an original paper in a journal.

Academic malfeasance of the highest order.

If there were capital punishment for academic crimes, these two would be hanging from a gibbet and crows would be feasting on their entrails.
 
DC said:
im a huge fan of Wikipedia, i have no problem with people, even scinetist using wikipedia, it is a very good website, especially as it contains dirct links to sources that usualy backup the claims made. sure there are some articles that are junk, but they don't last long.
Click to expand...

Very true, but it’s not a suitable source for a paper you are planning to submit to a peer reviewed journal even if you cite it properly. It would not be unusual to view it when doing some types of research into the literature, but in this case you’d want to follow it back to the original source, you wouldn’t cite Wikipedia directly.
 
lomiller said:
Very true, but it’s not a suitable source for a paper you are planning to submit to a peer reviewed journal even if you cite it properly. It would not be unusual to view it when doing some types of research into the literature, but in this case you’d want to follow it back to the original source, you wouldn’t cite Wikipedia directly.
Click to expand...

yeah usually its Wikipedia that links to Scientific papers, and not scientific papers that link to wikipedia :D
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
No. It's an investigation quoted by Climate Audit. If that invalidates the quoted material, then remember: Climate Audit quotes Mann, Briffa, Hughes. So I guess you concede, then, that Mann is full of BS, right?
Click to expand...

There's some things you should know about the people you trust unquestioningly.

Let's start with you doing some research about the Wegman report:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/cli...1-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ted-climate-critics-study-panned-by-expert-/1

:D

ETA: I'll bet a fiver that Malcolm will simply ignore all this in favor of perpetuating his misplaced worship of science denialism.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
The alternative is that in the case of the climate gate scandal, "climate change" is being exploited by politicians to enact some completely inept policy changes. The science shows the earth is "warming" however the same people arguing that this is a human induced phenomenon are working with only a few decades worth of objective satellite observations. Overall patterns of climate change can be much longer than a few decades, and at the very least anyone arguing that humans are the definitive cause to todays' climate patterns need to take that into account.
Click to expand...

And thou shall, on the sturdy bastions of science, base thou seances.

Excerpt from Holy Green Writ of Warmology, found in glacial remains, estimated to have been written in the earlier 21st century and somewhere named "Cal".
 
mhaze said:
And thou shall, on the sturdy bastions of science, base thou seances.

Excerpt from Holy Green Writ of Warmology, found in glacial remains, estimated to have been written in the earlier 21st century and somewhere named "Cal".
Click to expand...

hehe thats funny.

Father McIntyre surely will be proud of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom