Climategate

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I say those e-mails give evidence to my position.

And you wonder why people think you're a joke? Argue your point when questioned instead of going off on a rant and then when questioned on said rant completely avoid the question. You already ranted about that and were questioned on it.

Originally Posted by photon

Which emails show this?

In fact there's a very close analogy between your behaviour here and that of the critics in that they love to spout out inaccurate and baseless tripe then when they're called out on their statements by scientific argument (or even by a journalist for a public debate on their claims) they duck, dive and disappear only to pop up again repeating their baseless garbage.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The vast money pouring into organised religion has been generated by fear and sensation.

Fixed for accuracy.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Photon and others say that scientists have a special English language where words like "trick" don't mean "trick" and every other troubling thing they said is somehow taken out of context. I'm not buying it.

Yet you have no problems "buying" other literature that has a "special English Language".

Let me present to you the HARD EVIDENCE that global warming is coming and it isn't going to be pretty.

The Implications for YOU!

Climate change is occurring very rapidly and is affecting everyone. Sadly, few realise that these events are prophesied in the Bible and are part of the 'end time' scenario. For example:

'... the world fades and withers ...' (Isa 24.4)

'... the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left' (Isa 24.6)

'There will be ... dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves' (Lk 21.25)

'... all the green grass was burned up' (Rev 8.7)

'... huge hailstones, about one hundred and fifty pounds each, came down from heaven upon men ...' (Rev 16.21)

These biblical quotations are consistent with climate change predictions.

http://www.seekingtruth.co.uk/climate_change.htm

[photon]

If the premise was true that scientists would never offer a dissenting opinion vs. the consensus for fear of their pay cheque then science would never move from an old consensus to a new one.

However we can see historically this is not the case, science always (eventually) accepts new radical game-changing opinions, because the evidence forces it to. So the premise is false.

Science has proven it works. Some don't like the conclusions of science because it disagrees with whatever they've made up in their own brains out of ignorance, so they have to attack science.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Photon and others say that scientists have a special English language where words like "trick" don't mean "trick" and every other troubling thing they said is somehow taken out of context. I'm not buying it.

Of course you aren't buying it.. if they aren't using the word "trick" in the way that you require it to be used, then your whole position is flawed.

Another example of "if it doesn't support what I've decided to be true then it must be false".

From the Dictionary definition of trick:

5. a clever or ingenious device or expedient; adroit technique: the tricks of the trade.
6. the art or knack of doing something skillfully: You seem to have mastered the trick of making others laugh.

Yeah, using a word as it's defined in the dictionary is so special and sneaky.

If you'd bothered to find out the context of the email and understood it then it would be self evident. But that would interfere with the rhetoric.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by photon

If the premise was true that scientists would never offer a dissenting opinion vs. the consensus for fear of their pay cheque then science would never move from an old consensus to a new one.

However we can see historically this is not the case, science always (eventually) accepts new radical game-changing opinions, because the evidence forces it to. So the premise is false.

Science has proven it works. Some don't like the conclusions of science because it disagrees with whatever they've made up in their own brains out of ignorance, so they have to attack science.

Science may find it's way in the end, but there are plenty of examples throughout history where the scientific community is forced to drag it's feet for a long long long long long time.

This usually happens when politicians enter a debate that should purely be scientific.

[Pastiche]

All science is uncertain to a degree. How we act on this uncertainty is a political question. The BC government prohibited dioxin effluents in the 80s because it caused cancer in lab rats and is determined to be highly toxic. But, of course, the testing results were uncertain. Some argue that the levels of dioxin being dumped were so low that there was no need for a prohibition. Science couldn't agree on the unsafe amount. In the end politicians decided to play it safe for fear of the health effects.

The debate on CO2 is pretty much the same. We know that CO2 is a warming gas, we know that it is having an effect on the climate and we know that the potential consequences could be disastrous. Do we play it safe?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

The debate on CO2 is pretty much the same. We know that CO2 is a warming gas, we know that it is having an effect on the climate and we know that the potential consequences could be disastrous. Do we play it safe?

Well according to Canada's Environmental Protection Act we should:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/the...troduction.cfm

Cue the what is "cost-effective" argument but then again what is the cost benefit of dealing with the already observed impacts both now and in the future. And what are the opportunities.

In advance of UN climate talks next week in Copenhagen, more than 500 of Canada's leading scientists have issued an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning that global warming is happening much faster than previously estimated and that government needs much more aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.....

... Dr. Schindler says that in the scientific community there is dismay over what is perceived as a lack of reaction by Ottawa to research showing the country is at risk of great damage. These projected effects include a greater frequency of droughts on the Prairies, forest destruction through the spread of pests such as the pine beetle, and infrastructure damage from melting permafrost.
"I really think the key people in our government don't believe in science at all," Dr. Schindler said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1386545/

Letter to be released later today.

[Pastiche]

Canada is the single biggest detriment to the new climate agreement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-climate-deal?

[Jetsfan]

NASA hiding climate data.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

[mikey_the_redneck]

.......and Al Gore cancels his lecture in Copenhagen. The liar won't even show his face now.

[HOZ]

Aaaahhh....More denier/ conspiracy nut slurs.

We got the "science is unbiased" speech too even after showing the manipulations of Phil and Mann AND their ilk.

Even got asked for peer-reviewed (by Mann and Phil???? ) science papers.


Bjorn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson against George Monbiot and Elizabeth May debate.
Warmists win battle but lose the war.

[photon]

Pretty much the expected response, not sure why I expected an honest exchange. Oh well.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

We got the "science is unbiased" speech too even after showing the manipulations of Phil and Mann AND their ilk.

Even got asked for peer-reviewed (by Mann and Phil???? ) science papers.

Tell me more about your CO2 was 1000X in the past argument? You never did get back on that one.

Who wrote that paper?

A. moeba

That science thingy a bit complicated? Tis ok, you've always got the cartoons.

[HOZ]

There is this story about two hikers hiking up a mountain. They stumble across a hungry Grizzly bear. The bear is about to attack them when one hiker takes off his backpack. The other hiker says, "What are you doing? You can't out run him!"

First hiker to the other, " No, but I can now outrun you!"


Phil Jones has been accused of making an error in judgment by a colleague.

Guess who....

[Bagor]

^^

Creationists and climate change deniers have this in common: they don't answer their critics. They make what they say are definitive refutations of the science. When these refutations are shown to be nonsense, they do not seek to defend them. They simply switch to another line of attack. They never retract, never apologise, never explain, just raise the volume, keep moving and hope that people won't notice the trail of broken claims in their wake.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-change-denial

Goddamm it!! I want to hear about this groundbreaking x1000 CO2. It's riverting stuff! Share it!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

NASA hiding climate data.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

Yup I heard about this today. He is going to sue. Apparently NASA was suppose to provide the information within 20 days of the request. Big money = Big corruption. The question is: How long can they drag out the court case and what evidence has already been destroyed ?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Bagor

^^
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-change-denial

Goddamm it!! I want to hear about this groundbreaking x1000 CO2. It's riverting stuff! Share it!

Insults, condescension, demonization, and the like.

If you want more on the X1000 CO2 levels in the past go check out the scientist that said that. The link is there.

(area likely to be ignored is below)
This thread is about AGW's 2 main scientists and the creators of the Hockey stick that Gore won his nobel prize with being frauds.
Mann and Jones weren't two nobodies playing science in their basements. These ARE THE TWO TOP GUYS in AGW science. Even Monbiot (AGW super-booster galore), has said they have acted unethically and should step down. I'd like your take on it. You obviously believe they are good men.

For such honest, good men they (and their organizations) sure have acted like thieves in the night. Hell Mann just stuck a knife in Phil's back just recently.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Insults, condescension, demonization, and the like.

If you want more on the X1000 CO2 levels in the past go check out the scientist that said that. The link is there.

LOL! Stop playing the victim.

YOU are the one that posted it and as such are responsible for it. YOU used it to argue a point.

The "scientist" has already been checked out and exposed for the complete fraud he is in my post a few pages back. Were you aware that he was a complete fraud?

Now stop trying to disown that YOU posted the quote. My question simply is this:

Were you (a) blatantly posting stuff that you knew to be completely ridiculous and false or (b) are did you post it with honest intentions but wereso gullible that you actually believed it was true and would hold strength as an argument?

Which one is it (a) or (b)?

It's simple. YOU'RE the one talking about fraud and misleading people yet when you're called out on posting blatantly fraudulent rubbish all I'm hearing is waa waa I'm being insulted, condescended and demonized. If you're going to argue a point either back it up or concede that you were duped into tying rubbish.

Less deflection and answer the question ............... please. (a) or (b)?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Bagor

LOL! Stop playing the victim.

YOU are the one that posted it and as such are responsible for it. YOU used it to argue a point.

The "scientist" has already been checked out and exposed for the complete fraud he is in my post a few pages back. Were you aware that he was a complete fraud?

Now stop trying to disown that YOU posted the quote. My question simply is this:

Were you (a) blatantly posting stuff that you knew to be completely ridiculous and false or (b) are did you post it with honest intentions but wereso gullible that you actually believed it was true and would hold strength as an argument?

Which one is it (a) or (b)?

It's simple. YOU'RE the one talking about fraud and misleading people yet when you're called out on posting blatantly fraudulent rubbish all I'm hearing is waa waa I'm being insulted, condescended and demonized. If you're going to argue a point either back it up or concede that you were duped into tying rubbish.

Less deflection and answer the question ............... please. (a) or (b)?

One more try Bagor. Lets see if you can pull yourself back from the Lanny McDonald Abyss.

This thread is about AGW's 2 main scientists and the creators of the Hockey stick that Gore won his nobel prize with being frauds. Mann and Jones weren't two nobodies playing science in their basements. These ARE THE TWO TOP GUYS in AGW science. Even Monbiot (AGW super-booster galore), has said they have acted unethically and should step down. I'd like your take on it. You obviously believe they are good men.

For such honest, good men they (and their organizations) sure have acted like thieves in the night. Hell Mann just stuck a knife in Phil's back just recently.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

This thread is about AGW's 2 main scientists and the creators of the Hockey stick that Gore won his nobel prize with being frauds.
Mann and Jones weren't two nobodies playing science in their basements. These ARE THE TWO TOP GUYS in AGW science. Even Monbiot (AGW super-booster galore), has said they have acted unethically and should step down. I'd like your take on it. You obviously believe they are good men.

For such honest, good men they (and their organizations) sure have acted like thieves in the night. Hell Mann just stuck a knife in Phil's back just recently.

So all of a sudden we're back to Mann and Jones now when YOU were the one typing up that there's nothing to worry about as CO2 has been 1000 times higher in the past?

I'll gladly address Mann and Jones in a minute but first spare me the lecture on what the thread is about when I simply responded to a rubbish statement that YOU used to strengthen an argument. And spare me the lecture on what the thread is about when your contribution to it has been blogs and cartoons and the comedy factor of quoting Ian Pilmer.

Regarding Mann and Jones. In my very first post in this thread (I think) I addressed the "trick" word. Anyone with any common sense knows that it's a common word used to solve problems. I see no reason to think of wrongdoing from that, believe that the inquiry will clear them of "trickery" and that it's simply a politically hijacked word.

Regarding the e-mails regarding the journal Climate Research ... sure they didn't like the journal and the fundamentally flawed rubbish it was publishing. Science has standards and once fundamentally flawed garbage gets published it has 2 effect: (1) the media gets hold of it and presents it as real (2) other scientists waste energy and time ripping the article to shreds and exposing the flaws.

How did this all turn out? Climate Research allowed this to continue to such a stage that Soon and Baliunas' paper was the straw that broke their own back. It got so badly ripped and exposed for what it was that:

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal. Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_...Research_paper

As far as I can read it's scientist's discussing the credibility of a journal. The journal was hijacked by a corrupt editor and paid the price. Personally I can't see the big deal but hope that will be part of the investigation to clarify things.

As for Jones and McIntyre's requests for data? I presented one of the e-mails earlier where a scientist complained of harrassment from McIntyre and for the sake of getting on with his work gave it to him and more even though he wasn't finished analysing it for future publications. This, to me sets a dangerous precedent and one that I would like to see to go to court.

My personal feelings? Research data should be the intellectual property of the author for a certain amount of years (say 2 or 3 in areas of public interest, slighly more in others) and Jones should have handed it over. Why he didn't, I don't know but maybe (probably) he thinks McIntyre is a dick and didn't want to cave into his bullying demands. In hindsight Jones dropped to McIntyres level and was a dick also. Again something that the investigation will determine.

Don't assume that because you have a FOI behind you that there is an entitlement to the data ... because there's not (seperate post).

Regarding the hockey stick graph .... there is ZERO solid evidence of fraudulent behaviour behind the graph despite NRC investigating it on behalf of congress with their main criticism being:

"there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect"

But why not re-review it? I've no problem with that.

In summary, I support a full investigation and I expect a full misrepresentation of the findings by the media. As I said wayyyyyy back in this thread, even though the skeptics have a HUGE propaganda victory here and the amount of media attention centred on 3-5 e-mails over ~10 years I believe there will be no evidence of wrong-doing.

Of course what will happen is some idiot will look at a report and go oooooohhh Mann and Jones, I can't trust that. Meanwhile, behind the scenes the real science will continue to go on.

As Monbiot (who you like to cite when it suits you but ignore when he talks about your dear friend Plimer) states the biggest problem is irresponsible journalism be it intentionally, ignorantly or naively.

And so it went on. It wouldn't have been hard for Webb to have refuted these claims: Plimer makes them every time he speaks, and they have been debunked again and again. Had the Today programme done its research, it would have equipped Webb with the answers to these falsehoods, and he wouldn't have allowed them to pass unchallenged.No one should be allowed to speak on the Today programme until the interviewer is equipped to challenge them. But let's drop all this talk of keeping people we disagree with off the air. Let them say their piece but don't let them or anyone else get away with talking gibberish.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...oday-programme

But anyways .... at the end of the day there is no basis whatsoever to call fraud. I've produced papers, I've played about with data, I've removed outliers which have changed the slope of graphs .... guess that makes me a fraud too. It's all in context.

To finish ... here's a picture of Mr X1000 CO2 and volcanoes outproducing man-made emmissions looking very science like.

[HOZ]

Rex Murphy lays it all out plain and simple for all.

"The stink of intellectual corruption is over powering"