My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Big Climate likes to silence inconvenient journalists | Main | Climate scientist Jim Salinger stoops to lowest debate level ever »

Comments

Ian Wishart

Craig, I'm not sure if you are familiar with another legal concept, mens rea, loosely described as criminal intent.

One can be guilty of a crime for forming the intent to commit it, even if the plan eventually goes astray or is not enacted.

More to the point, it goes to the heart of the honesty and integrity of the individuals involved, regardless of how much they actually got away with.

That's why they can't be trusted: given the right set of circumstances, they'd do the dodgy stuff if it suited them

Mario

And somebody is still waiting on the evidence to be exposed???!!!
What kind of evidence do you want CM?
Do you want all these people that have perpetrated scientific fraud like
Phil Jones and the Company that they come up on the TV One and tell you:

1.) Yes we did fudge the data in order to 'hide the decline' and you can find those very words in those Emails,
2.) Yes we used a little 'trick' in order to show that in spite the cooling we just wanted to trick the public and show the opposite so that it appears that the planet is warming,
3.) Yes we never wanted to give the raw data to anybody well but how could we do that because the independent scientists would then figure out that we are fudging the figures and frankly speaking we have just been defrauding the public for over a decade, ha, ha, ha.

Is that you what you want CM ?
Well you see this won't happen and it won't happen because Phil Jones and the Company already have their nicely chosen defender who is going to do another whitewash for them and they will look squeaky clean in the end just like nothing happened. The ardent global warmist from the Royal society is going to do this job for them. After all as long as there are people who can not understand those e-mails given to the public and there is still some percentage of that public that can not understand that fudging the scientific data is wrong, that destroying the row data is a criminal act according to the british law ( FOA) then why not just do another whitewash.

CM

>>>Craig, I'm not sure if you are familiar with another legal concept, mens rea, loosely described as criminal intent.<<<

What exactly is the criminal act you're accusing them of plotting?

>>>One can be guilty of a crime for forming the intent to commit it, even if the plan eventually goes astray or is not enacted.<<<

Well most of the developed world is looking at prison then, if bitching over email is now to be considered criminal.

>>>More to the point, it goes to the heart of the honesty and integrity of the individuals involved, regardless of how much they actually got away with.<<<

Yep, we can certainly judge people by what they wrote in emails. No argument there.

>>>That's why they can't be trusted: given the right set of circumstances, they'd do the dodgy stuff if it suited them<<<

Come on - that's obviously just pure speculation on your part. You can certainly hold that opinion, but it doesn't make it factual. You don't get to create facts by using your imagination.

Falafulu Fisi

CM, the IPCC summary reviewers only review articles that fit in with their pre-conceived ideas, ie, AGW. They didn't/don't review any articles that oppose those pre-conceived views of theirs.

AcidComments

"CM, the IPCC summary reviewers only review articles that fit in with their pre-conceived ideas, ie, AGW. They didn't/don't review any articles that oppose those pre-conceived views of theirs.'

Falafulu F.

That's right.

And then the IPCC 'hyped up the figures' produced by some of scientists without allowing them a right of reply to what the IPCC had done to their original work.

And here we call it 'Peer Reviewed' science. Rubbish.

No wonder one scientist who was involved in the IPCC process a Geologist called The IPCC methods as "Fiction".

CM

Ah that would be why they didn't include the McIntyre/McKitrick paper criticising Mann's original hockey stick, as discussed in the emails.

Oh hang on, they did.

CM

>>>Do you want all these people that have perpetrated scientific fraud....<<<

Some evidence of scientific fraud would be a good start.

>>>1.) Yes we did fudge the data in order to 'hide the decline' and you can find those very words in those Emails<<<

And the most reasonable explanation makes sense, which is one that doesn't involve any fraud at all. Just because you want to find fraud, that doesn't mean that fraud automatically occured. This is why many the world's scientists have all actively come out saying they can't see anything untoward. They didn't have to. They could have kept quiet. Clearly either you are wrong, or they're all in on the fraud, committing mass and open professional fraud on a scale never seen before. I know which one I'd put my money on.

>>>2.) Yes we used a little 'trick' in order to show that in spite the cooling we just wanted to trick the public and show the opposite so that it appears that the planet is warming<<<

The term 'trick' can be found in many papers and discussions. Again, you're ruling out the obvious and clear explanation in favour of one that's is unreasonable and unlikely. Your choice, but it's intellectually dishonest and if you took 5 minutes to be objective you'd see that clearly.

>>>3.) Yes we never wanted to give the raw data to anybody well but how could we do that because the independent scientists would then figure out that we are fudging the figures and frankly speaking we have just been defrauding the public for over a decade, ha, ha, ha.<<<

Independent scientists had access to the data. Again, sounds like you're falling for the distorted hype. Do some independent investigating online by yourself, don't just believe what Morano and Watts and Monckton are trying to tell you.

Again, thousands of scientists have seen nothing in these emails, and neither have national scientific bodies.

>>>Is that you what you want CM ?<<<

No, I'm looking for actual evidence. No the usual distortion and misrepresentations that we get every year. Every year there is something 'new' that's apparently going to blow apart this big fraud, and every year it inevitably turns out to be a massive fraud of it's own. But then apparently the following year that's all conveniently forgotten.

Take 5 minutes and think rationally and objectively. You'll start to realise how ridiculous it all is to keep pusing these memes.

>>>Well you see this won't happen and it won't happen because Phil Jones and the Company already have their nicely chosen defender who is going to do another whitewash for them and they will look squeaky clean in the end just like nothing happened.<<<

Glad to see you're not prejudging anything, just like Ian. But then, if you're adament there is a grand conspiracy afoot, that's the only thing you can do.

>>>The ardent global warmist from the Royal society is going to do this job for them.<<<

Who would you pick to do the review? Lord Monckton? Ian Plimer? Anthony Watts? Marc Morano?

>>>After all as long as there are people who can not understand those e-mails given to the public and there is still some percentage of that public that can not understand that fudging the scientific data is wrong, that destroying the row data is a criminal act according to the british law ( FOA) then why not just do another whitewash.<<<

No raw data was destroyed (intentionally to stop people getting it, or otherwise). It's all still there at each station. You're just parroting the lies you've been fed. Trying looking a little deeper than denier blogs.

Falafulu Fisi

CM, before I want to debate scientific issues with you, may I ask you if you want to really debate the issues instead of you making piss take comments?

I am a guy who holds 4 patents in the US (with my previous employer) in a real scientific discipline called photonics & opto-electronics. We view climate science as non-core or non-fundamental physics, since it is based on more fundamentals such as quantum mechanics, statistical physics (thermodynamics, etc...) and such. We see climate science as like children's play in terms of hard core physics study. I can understand their publications, but they have to invest years on what we fundamental physicists do & study in order for them to understand. Their stuff is child play, and take it from a nuclear and photonics physicist like myself.

Thomidog

What Dr Lloyed actually sayd is that the Summary for Policy Makers includes material which hasn't yet been published. The reviewers of the material are sitting at the table checking the Sumamry drafts - so they are scarcely anonymous - and they're including information based on material which hasn't yet been published. Hence no-one in the scientific community has yet had a chance to publicly respond to the material. This must be an extremely uncomfortable process to be involved in. The scientist who's written the paper under review (which hasn't been published yet) risks having his or her results misreprented by the reviewer; similarly the reviewer, having given input into a public process, binds themselves ahead of time to the later publication of material they may subsequently find error with, but on which they can't change their minds. This is miles away from what "independent perr review" means. A paper which has been "independently peer reviewd" has not only been reviewed by the person passing it as acceptable for publication, but has then been reviewed merely by being in the public forum for a length of time sufficient to allow the rest of the community to evaluate it and if necessary respond. It is in this way that new theories and discoveries are honed and fine-tuned. Until such time as others have had a chance to reflect on the results of a paper, it remains just one person's opinion, or finding - it is in no way "accepted science" if it's only just been published! And the IPCC is inlcuding work that hasn't even been published! Dr LLoyd says that in the early years of the IPCC, the paper would be publisehd at the same time that the Summary was being written, witha caveat that it was the most recent word on the topic - but someone didn't like that (or thought it left them open to criticism) - so now, the Summary is written before the work is published, and it's done without caveats, and then presented to the public as established, peer-reviewed science. Bunkum! Junk science! This is the utter corruption of science by post-modernist techniques and strategies developed within the social sciences, not the physical ones; and informed largely by political goals such as 'inclusivity' and 'representation' rather than any aspiration to attaining the truth. (NB. It is the strategies I accuse of this, not any particular individual!) This consultative techniques might be fine when assessing community need for a new playground, but they're a really poor way of assessing the state of the atmosphere! I'm so disappointed at where things have got to. It's a tragedy for science and the world.

Thomidog

P.S. Sorry for all the typos.

El Jefe

CM:

Please hold yourself to your own high standards. You seem to be concerned about being objective and intellectually honest but you fail to do so yourself.

>>>…<<<

>>>And the most reasonable explanation makes sense, which is one that doesn't involve any fraud at all.<<<

Reasonable according to what? Are you saying it is reasonable to believe that fraud never happens in science? Are you saying scientists are infallible? That is not at all reasonable based on history.

>>>Just because you want to find fraud, that doesn't mean that fraud automatically occurred.<<<

And just because you believe that fraud did not occur doesn't mean that it did not occur.

>>>This is why many the world's scientists have all actively come out saying they can't see anything untoward. They didn't have to. They could have kept quiet.<<<

Logical fallacy = Appeal to Authority. Who are they? Have they actually read the ~thousand emails? Did they read the documents? Did they analyze the programming code? Are they objective? Do they have a vested interest in preserving the status quo so they can keep their jobs? Are they qualified in criminal forensics? This is similar to the consensus argument for AGW. Consensus means nothing (unless they are a legally established court jury...hmmm.)

>>>Clearly either you are wrong, or they're all in on the fraud, committing mass and open professional fraud on a scale never seen before. I know which one I'd put my money on.<<<

Logical fallacy = False dilemma. Not so clear. Not necessarily mass fraud—could be mass good intentions or something else. Mass professional mistakes have occurred in history before, especially in science. Read Dava Sobel's book Longitude.

>>>The term 'trick' can be found in many papers and discussions. Again, you're ruling out the obvious and clear explanation in favour of one that's is unreasonable and unlikely. Your choice, but it's intellectually dishonest and if you took 5 minutes to be objective you'd see that clearly.<<<

Option A: Obvious and clear explanation. Option B: Unreasonable and unlikely explanation. If we choose the blue pill seen as Option A we are intellectually dishonest which is essentially an ad hominem attack = logical fallacy. Then you lecture him about objectivity--wow! Get a mirror. Look into it and give yourself your own advice. It is intellectually dishonest to jump to the assumption that fraud could not have occurred. Option C: Red pill--It is possible that fraud did occur; it is possible that fraud did not occur.

>>>Independent scientists had access to the data. Again, sounds like you're falling for the distorted hype. Do some independent investigating online by yourself, don't just believe what Morano and Watts and Monckton are trying to tell you.<<<

Independent according to what standard? It is apparent based on the emails and media that one is pro-AGW and "in the club" or one is a "denier" and shunned (can't get data without a fight; can't get peer reviewed/published without a fight.) It seems like there are no "Independent" scientists in the club--as soon as one disagrees, one is out of the club. They stated in email traffic they would delete data if they had to give it out. They stated they *did* delete emails. They stated they hoped certain people would not find out about the FOIA. They stated they would interfere with the peer review process and influence which data got to IPCC. That is not hype. What it is: sad. Find a mirror. Look into it and listen to your own advice about believing whomever *you* are listening to. Read the emails/files/code yourself (http://www.climate-gate.org/).

>>>Again, thousands of scientists have seen nothing in these emails, and neither have national scientific bodies.<<<

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. I doubt the veracity of your statement. The claim that thousands say _____ doesn't necessarily make _____ true.

>>>No, I'm looking for actual evidence. No the usual distortion and misrepresentations that we get every year. Every year there is something 'new' that's apparently going to blow apart this big fraud, and every year it inevitably turns out to be a massive fraud of it's own. But then apparently the following year that's all conveniently forgotten.<<<

Support this claim with examples. You have proof of fraud perpetrated by the skeptics? By all means let's hear it. I’m looking for actual evidence too. :-)

>>>Take 5 minutes and think rationally and objectively. You'll start to realise how ridiculous it all is to keep pushing these memes.<<<

Find a mirror. Gaze at yourself in the mirror. Say to yourself the two sentences above. AGW is not resting on settled science and is definitely one of the biggest memes that exists. Also you seem to be assuming that simply because something becomes a meme, it is untrue. That is a faulty assumption. Truth could be found in a meme as well as untruth. If these memes cause the science to be done more thoroughly it is a good thing. Take 5 and ponder that.

>>>...<<<

>>>No raw data was destroyed (intentionally to stop people getting it, or otherwise). It's all still there at each station. You're just parroting the lies you've been fed. Trying looking a little deeper than denier blogs.<<<

CRU announced that data was destroyed because of lack of hard drive space in the eighties (which seems unreasonable to me, with a background in IT). Saying data is still there at each station seems to be a subterfuge. They admitted they deleted raw data and kept homogenized data. You seem to be parroting too. Perhaps you should dig deeper.

Find a mirror dude. Heed your own advice.


AcidComments


Of Interest:

Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information

Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

El Jefe

Ooops, missed something:

There is also a lot of Appeal to Popularity
(argumentum ad populum)mixed in CM's post too. (Commonly seen in the so-called support for AGW too which is usually a combination of appeal to authority, appeal to popularity and appeal to consequences.)

Definition:

A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole. (Stephen's Guide; http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/pop.htm.)

CM

>CM, before I want to debate scientific issues with you, may I ask you if you want to really debate the issues instead of you making piss take comments?

I am a guy who holds 4 patents in the US (with my previous employer) in a real scientific discipline called photonics & opto-electronics. We view climate science as non-core or non-fundamental physics, since it is based on more fundamentals such as quantum mechanics, statistical physics (thermodynamics, etc...) and such. We see climate science as like children's play in terms of hard core physics study. I can understand their publications, but they have to invest years on what we fundamental physicists do & study in order for them to understand. Their stuff is child play, and take it from a nuclear and photonics physicist like myself.<<<

Shit, well in that case I'll just believe everything you say. Why didn't you just say that from the beginning?!

CM

>>>Reasonable according to what? Are you saying it is reasonable to believe that fraud never happens in science? Are you saying scientists are infallible? That is not at all reasonable based on history.<<<

No and no. Not what I said at all. I'm talking about the specific accusations over the meaning behind specific comments in the emails.

>>>And just because you believe that fraud did not occur doesn't mean that it did not occur.<<<

Yes but to make an accusation you've got to have some actual evidence. Not just out of context twisted accusations. That's not evidence. Pretty basic stuff.
Fraud could indeed have occured, but there's no smoking gun of fraud in the emails.

>>>Logical fallacy = Appeal to Authority. Who are they? Have they actually read the ~thousand emails? Did they read the documents? Did they analyze the programming code? Are they objective? Do they have a vested interest in preserving the status quo so they can keep their jobs? Are they qualified in criminal forensics? This is similar to the consensus argument for AGW. Consensus means nothing (unless they are a legally established court jury...hmmm.)<<<

Rather than being an appeal to authority, it's a sign that those better able to assess the contents of the emails are comfortable enough to stand by their previous positions.
Obviously if any investigations find fraud they'll all be able to provide additional comments. But there's a good bet they'll again stand by their positions. It's an even better bet that they'll then be accused of being corrupt from the usual nutbar suspects.

>>>Option A: Obvious and clear explanation. Option B: Unreasonable and unlikely explanation. If we choose the blue pill seen as Option A we are intellectually dishonest which is essentially an ad hominem attack = logical fallacy. Then you lecture him about objectivity--wow! Get a mirror. Look into it and give yourself your own advice. It is intellectually dishonest to jump to the assumption that fraud could not have occurred. Option C: Red pill--It is possible that fraud did occur; it is possible that fraud did not occur.<<<

Yeah you've got yourself all nice and confused there. Chosing Option B would be intellectually disonest unless there is evidence. No Option A.

Is it a logical fallacy to call someones stupid because they are stupid?

>>>Independent according to what standard? It is apparent based on the emails and media that one is pro-AGW and "in the club" or one is a "denier" and shunned (can't get data without a fight; can't get peer reviewed/published without a fight.)<<<

Name the scientists hat couldn't get the data.

>>>They stated in email traffic they would delete data if they had to give it out. They stated they *did* delete emails. They stated they hoped certain people would not find out about the FOIA.<<<

All true. Mostly just Phil Jones though.

>>>They stated they would interfere with the peer review process and influence which data got to IPCC. That is not hype.<<<

Yeah but it's a comment in an EMAIL for crying out loud. They didn't fire the editorial board for publishing a crap paper, the board resigned. They didn't keep the specific paper (not data) out of the IPCC report - it's in there.
Dig a little deeper than right-wing blogs.

>>>What it is: sad. Find a mirror. Look into it and listen to your own advice about believing whomever *you* are listening to.<<<

Projection.

>>>Read the emails/files/code yourself<<<

Done. And I've read all the twisted distortion about what they all mean and what they resulted in.

>>>Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. I doubt the veracity of your statement. The claim that thousands say _____ doesn't necessarily make _____ true.<<<

Doesn't make it true, but I'm not a scientist so I'l take their word (in addition to reading the emails) against right wing bloggers (who are obviously distorting and misrepresenting things - and what you are parroting).

>>>Support this claim with examples. You have proof of fraud perpetrated by the skeptics?<<<

Where do you want to start? The internet is infested with it. Shall we start with the 100 reasons article that Ian was promoting?
Or pick a random statement by Marc Morano.
Or we can go through Plimer's book.

>>>Find a mirror. Gaze at yourself in the mirror. Say to yourself the two sentences above. AGW is not resting on settled science...<<<

Fallacy, and standard denier distortion. Who claimed it rested on settled science? Who suggested there was no uncertaint.

>>>and is definitely one of the biggest memes that exists.<<<

Nah I think 'the science is settled' is a larger meme. Although there are about 20 standard denier meme's not far behind.

>>>Also you seem to be assuming that simply because something becomes a meme, it is untrue.<<<

If I've said meme then that's how I meant it. A inaccurate talking point that is internally continually reinforced within a group until it becomes a 'known truth' within that group. E.g. the science is settled. You couldn't have provided a better example.

>>>If these memes cause the science to be done more thoroughly it is a good thing. Take 5 and ponder that.<<<

I'm all for any improvements in science. I don't see how slander, distortion, misrepresentation, and character assassinaton is going to improve anything though.

>>>CRU announced that data was destroyed because of lack of hard drive space in the eighties (which seems unreasonable to me, with a background in IT).<<<

How so?

>>>Saying data is still there at each station seems to be a subterfuge.<<<

A deceptive device or stratagem? How is that deceptive? Seems like it's something that's either true or it isn't. I.e. the data still exist or it doesn't.

>>>They admitted they deleted raw data and kept homogenized data. You seem to be parroting too.<<<

They did indeed. So what am I parroting? What have I claimed that isn't correct? What accusations have I made that I can't support with any evidence?

El Jefe

CM

>>>Is it a logical fallacy to call someones stupid because they are stupid?<<<

Maybe. If it is done as a means of supporting an argument other than an argument over whether the someone is stupid. Then it would be an ad hominem attack. Of course, one would still have to support the statement with evidence of stupity.

>>>Name the scientists hat couldn't get the data.<<<

Naming the scientist is a side issue, it is already established that they were stonewalling (see your comment below on Phil Jones.) I was addressing the word independent that you used. Please lets deal with that issue.

>>>All true. Mostly just Phil Jones though.<<<

Thank you. But lets not scapegoat Phil. Others are involved too.

>>>Yeah but it's a comment in an EMAIL for crying out loud. They didn't fire the editorial board for publishing a crap paper, the board resigned. They didn't keep the specific paper (not data) out of the IPCC report - it's in there.
Dig a little deeper than right-wing blogs.<<<

Not sure how a comment being in an email makes it any less important. Where would it have to be to be important? Carved in stone? Sky writing? Smoke signals? I dont follow your reasoning on that. Half the board resigned for a reason. What other papers did not get published? What scientists left the field due to gatekeeping? (On both ends--funds and publishing?) How did that situation affect other publications editorial boards? These kinds of actions affect the science and public trust.

>>>Projection.<<<

I can see why you would say that.

>>>Done. And I've read all the twisted distortion about what they all mean and what they resulted in.<<<

Thank you. Ditto.

>>>Where do you want to start? ... Or we can go through Plimer's book.<<<

Fraud is a big word. You are quick to defend CRU, and equally quick to accuse Ian and Morano, et al. That seems inconsistent. Oh, and you didnt prove fraud, you just rattled off a bunch of names. I wonder if you are using the same standard of evidence for both groups of people.


>>>Fallacy, and standard denier distortion. Who claimed it rested on settled science? Who suggested there was no uncertaint.<<<

Gore: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642

Browner: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/climate-czar-says-e-mails-dont-change-anything/

The politicians are cooperating with the climate-deniers-distortions racket. So does this mean that settled science is a standard denier distortion, or does that make it a standard politician distortion? One wonders.

>>>I'm all for any improvements in science. I don't see how slander, distortion, misrepresentation, and character assassinaton is going to improve anything though.<<<

I dont see the professional skeptics doing those things. Indeed, some of them appear to be better scientists than the scientists as far as approaching this topic with healthy skepticism goes. And you have done some of those same things in your postsjust saying. CM meet CM.

>>>A deceptive device or stratagem? How is that deceptive? Seems like it's something that's either true or it isn't. I.e. the data still exist or it doesn't.<<<

It would depend on the something. If the something was No raw data was destroyed (intentionally to stop people getting it, or otherwise)(CM, December 17), then it would not be true. If the something was, the data still exists, (CM, December 21), then it would be true. The subterfuge is the equivocation of those two somethings. Equivocation = logical fallacy.

It is established that CRU did destroy data. Saying it still exists does not change that fact. Yes it could be reassembled from the multitude of individual stations. But an audit to compare actual station data with the raw data used by CRU is now made greatly more difficult. And an audit would be best to restore public confidence and to ensure that the science has not been tampered with.

You seem to have a lack of object constancy. Your posts contradict themselves. That and the double standard that you use, concerns me.

CM

>>>Naming the scientist is a side issue,<<<

Only because you've presumably found that no scientists were 'blocked' from the data.

>>>it is already established that they were stonewalling (see your comment below on Phil Jones.) I was addressing the word independent that you used. Please lets deal with that issue.<<<

I said 'independent' to indicate that it doesn't matter what their professional or personal opinion is. Denier scientists have had access.

>>>Thank you. But lets not scapegoat Phil. Others are involved too.<<<

The examples you gave were Jones. Let's not accuse everyone of everything.

>>>Not sure how a comment being in an email makes it any less important.<<<

For crying out loud, how can you guys play dumb so easily? Emails are quick and informal communications. The vast majority of people (who aren't paranoid or conspiracy nuts) say any old crap over email. It's akin to talking to your mates down the pub. It's quite different from saying something in public.

>>>Where would it have to be to be important? Carved in stone? Sky writing? Smoke signals? I dont follow your reasoning on that.<<<

Missing the point. The point is that the emails need to be judged in the context of how they were written. Sure, investigate to see if any of the claims turned out to be true. But, as much as Ian would like, you can't convict on informal email chatter.

>>>Half the board resigned for a reason. What other papers did not get published? What scientists left the field due to gatekeeping? (On both ends--funds and publishing?) How did that situation affect other publications editorial boards? These kinds of actions affect the science and public trust.<<<

Yep, so the right people should look into it. See if there is any evidence to support those theories/questions. But that's not what people are calling for. People had the pitchforks ready and were waiting around in a pre-formed angry mob for the first sniff of something, anything. Desperation literally dripping off them.

>>>I can see why you would say that.<<<

Because some of the things you say are just denier memes that don't stand up to any scrutiny.

>>>Fraud is a big word. You are quick to defend CRU,<<<

No, I am quick to attack silliness and premature gloating. Don't confuse that with defending CRU.

>>>and equally quick to accuse Ian and Morano, et al.<<<

Usually only as part of some specific example. Usually.

>>>Oh, and you didnt prove fraud, you just rattled off a bunch of names.<<<

I wasn't claiming to have proven anything. I was asking you where you want to start? I gave you some options.

>>>I wonder if you are using the same standard of evidence for both groups of people.<<<

Mirror time. Be skeptical of the skeptics.

>>>Gore: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642<<<

That NPR is always the link used, but it can never be corroberated with any other source. And the only thing he's talking about being 'settled' (if thats even what he said, because they don't include it in quotes like they do otherwise), he's talking specifically about carbon-dioxide emissions heating the Earth's atmosphere. Do you disagree that carbon dioxide heat the earth's atmosphere. (Hint: If you're a good loyal denier, this is where you say 'Ha! CO2 *doesn't* heat the atmosphere by itself', believing that a game of Gotcha! will get you there).

>>>Browner: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/25/climate-czar-says-e-mails-dont-change-anything/<<<

No quote there from Browner about it being settled. It reads that that is how the journalist has decided to summarise the quote that follows (paragraph 2).

>>>The politicians are cooperating with the climate-deniers-distortions racket.<<<

Woah, back up the truck Rusty. That's two and blatant and serious accusations you've made just there based on nothing but your theory. Where is the evidence?

>>>So does this mean that settled science is a standard denier distortion, or does that make it a standard politician distortion? One wonders.<<<

Standard denier distortion. I've lost count of how many variations on the same argument I've been involved in, all with people basing it pretty much on how hey 'feel' about it. None ever admit that scientists fall over themselves ensuring their uncertainties are mentioned upfront. You'll never ever here or see a denier mention Mann's ground-breaking error bars on his original hockeystick.

>>>I dont see the professional skeptics doing those things.<<<

They're falling over themselves doing it. And people don't call them on it, and are therefore rightly cast into the same tent.

>>>Indeed, some of them appear to be better scientists than the scientists as far as approaching this topic with healthy skepticism goes.<<<

Which ones?

>>>And you have done some of those same things in your postsjust saying. CM meet CM.<<<

Where?

>>>It would depend on the something. If the something was No raw data was destroyed (intentionally to stop people getting it, or otherwise)(CM, December 17), then it would not be true. If the something was, the data still exists, (CM, December 21), then it would be true. The subterfuge is the equivocation of those two somethings. Equivocation = logical fallacy.<<<

Both are true. There is no evidence that I've seen that shows that the data was dumped for any other reason but that given, and I believe the data is all still available. The CRU just dumped their gathered data from the places where it still exists. Nothing to stop anyone getting it back again.

>>>It is established that CRU did destroy data.<<<

It seems so.

>>>Saying it still exists does not change that fact.<<<

I does when people imply (on purpose) that CRU were the only people who had the data, and dumped it on purpose to stop people using it.

>>>Yes it could be reassembled from the multitude of individual stations. But an audit to compare actual station data with the raw data used by CRU is now made greatly more difficult.<<<

How is that CRU's fault? Why are they the scapegoats? Why didn't some keen deniers like McIntyre gather their own version of the data, so that they didn't need to rely on their arch-enemies?

>>>And an audit would be best to restore public confidence and to ensure that the science has not been tampered with.<<<

I agree. But it won't make any difference to the deniers. It's all a big conspiracy. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise. It's simply not possible. The audit will be called a whitewash before it even begins, to ensure a disapppointing result (i.e. no tampering) can be discredited. I'd put money on it.

>>>You seem to have a lack of object constancy.<<<

I think I spend too much time online having discussions with conspiracy theorists. They all blend into one after a while.

>>>Your posts contradict themselves.<<<

Which ones?

>>>That and the double standard that you use,<<<

Which ones?

>>>concerns me.<<<

I'm sorry that I've concerned you. It wasn't my intention. Possibly it might go back to my childhood......

CM

"When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist."

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php

CM

And while Jones magnanimously steps aside whilst an independent enquiry reports, Plimer sails on spreading his disinformation. The world is warped. Have his employers no shame?

Falafulu Fisi

CM said...
see a denier mention Mann's ground-breaking error bars on his original hockeystick.

Have you read the original Mann et al's paper? If you have, did you understand it?

And what's ground-breaking about error-bars? Black-holes were predicted via equations by decades ahead even before observations indirectly indicated that such phenomena exists. That's ground-breaking. Einstein published a paper on laser (population inversion) in 1916 decades ahead of the first laser/maser being successfully produced by Charles Townesend in the mid 1950s (who went to win the Nobel Prize for his invention) and that was ground-breaking.

Do you see, by what I meant scientific ground-breaking. I wondered sometimes, if you understanding of physics is above 5th form level or not. Well, there are ground-breaking theories and predictions and error-bars is not one of them. It is not ground-breaking.

If you work as a climate scientist somewhere, then you deserved to be sacked (same as Salinger), because it is obvious that don't know the difference between ground-breaking theories/researches and a prostitute.

The comments to this entry are closed.