This thread is about potential fraudulent behaviour as suggested to you.
Now .... Convince me you're not a hypocrite. Answer my question.
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 were so gullible that you actually believed it was true and would hold strength as an argument?
Which one is it (a) or (b)?
It's a fair question for the purposes of the debate moving forward. I think it's only fair that I know whether I'm dealing with a blatant liar (a) or a gullible individual (b). Wouldn't you agree?
I'll even give you a get out clause of (c) my bad, how the hell could anyone have believed that?
Prove to me you're in here for a serious discussion and are not a stereotypical denier.
Quote:
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.
Is it (a) HOZ? Is it (b) orrrrrrr will you grab the (c)?
Answer the question and we'll move on or I can guarantee you the bolded above won't happen.
I just did a quick readthrough of the wikipedia entry for "Effects of Global Warming" and it doesn't really scare me.
There's a lot of talk about the potential effects on things like rising sea levels (0.8m over the next century doesn't sound like enough to me to make that much of an impact - especially for me since I live so far inland), species extinction (some species will flourish, while others may disappear - I like penguins, but their extinction won't really change how I live my life), agriculture (again some areas of the world will benefit from the increased precipitation, while others will become more desert-like), and weather (I don't mind big storms).
Maybe it would have more of an impact if it explicitly stated how human lives will be affected. It doesn't mean much to say the ice caps are melting and sea levels will rise, if there's no consequences given. But I didn't read anything that sounded so severe that we wouldn't be able to adapt to quite easily.
I just think most people don't care because they don't know how it will impact them personally (if it will at all). There's nothing I read that makes me think my life will change at all. The article does state that developing nations will feel more of the effects than developed nations.
Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.
Quote:
Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential
Quote:
A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.
Quote:
The theft highlights the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers.
Don't miss Rex's speech.
briffa_Sep98_d.pro
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap. Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data.
As has been exposed in your previous posts one is unable to tell if your post isn't a deliberate lie or that you simply haven't the cognitive function to comprehend what you're posting which has been evidently proven in your past posts.
I mean, that your posting history has exposed you as being either (a) corrupt/dishonest/fraudulent enough or (b) stupid/gullible enough to think that ooooh there used to be x1000 CO2 in the atmosphere is a good argument against AGW speaks volumes about your cognitive function to make an informed decision on the events.
You can whine all you want and say I'm fudging the data to attack you. My defence? It's all observational, recorded data.
(a) or (b) HOZ. Corrupt or stupid? Lying or gullible? Which one is it?
I look forward to your deflections and ignoring of the question which will only strengthen and prove my point.
It's a sad reflection when you can't man up or explain the rationale behind an an argument.
But hey .... you just keep on posting quotes you don't understand if it makes you feel good. Shame really, you were doing much better at the cartoons.
Here is a very balanced article giving a good recap from TIMESONLINE.
LOL! How would you know? You've proven you don't even understand what you're posting.
Does it mention CO2 levels? Will be be safe if they increase 1000 fold.?
Quote:
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.
I rest my case!
The evidence Sir shows that you indeed are guilty of being a hypocrite. In a thread where accusations of fraudulent behaviour are frequently thrown about you have the nerve to post a lump of fraud from a known fraudster.
Did you do it intentionally or are you so cereberally challenged you never thought ........ ummmm, this sounds a bit dumb.
(a) or (b) Liar or just plain stupid. Which one?
Relax HOZ I won't waste my energy by stalking you with every post but don't you worry nasty little Bagor is going to be popping up every now and then to ask you about your x1000 CO2 claim.
This is a thread about honesty and transparency. Wouldn't you agree that you've been exposed as the mother of all hypocrites?
L .....O ........L at the exposure of your lies and/or dumbness.
Now are you going to answer the question or am I going to be forced to throw a FOI on you!
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
CO2 saved us from the snowball Earth, we should set it free from its hydrocarbon bonds to allow alligators to return to the Canadian Arctic archipelago. Imagine the tears David Suzuki would shed if a sudden climatic change resulted in them freezing to death... But wait, that happened 10 million years ago when luckily there was not a species around to question its own impact on the global climate.
We still have a lot to learn about the complicated interactions that biologic, physical, and climatological systems the Earth has acquired and tested via meteor impacts, volcanic super eruptions and other unknown (possibly interstellar) phenomena over the planets existence. If we were to launch all the nuclear weapons we had during the height of the cold war I would really doubt the sentient Cockroach ancestors would even notice any change in the *planets* climate (I really doubt the would luck out and still call it Earth :P). Even if we have another 1000 years to study the climate on Earth at least by then our ancestors would be intelligent enough to say that we do not know dick all about it.
Think about it this way... If we can't forecast what the weather would exactly be like in a week what right do we have in saying what the climate will be in 100 years.
Last edited by Sluggo; 12-05-2009 at 06:36 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sluggo For This Useful Post:
Globe and Mail....finally Prof. Hulme is one of several scientists calling for the raw data of climate-change research to be made available to everyone, including climate-change skeptics, on the Internet. That, he says, would allow genuine research to proceed unhindered. Some of his colleagues also say the IPCC now does more harm than good and should be disbanded. That position has led some of his colleagues to attack him. This week, several said in Internet posts that such transparency would be unworkable because the matter of climate is too urgent and the stakes too high to allow skeptics to have any influence on policy. That, Prof. Hulme said, is exactly the attitude that led to the sort of questionable practices chronicled in the CRU e-mails.
I hope Prof. Hulme succeeds. Then we will all really know the truth.
As you wait...take a look at poor HARRY. 1/10 of the way down gets interesting.
Although little-known in Canada, McIntyre and McKitrick -- or M and M as they're called in climate change circles -- have since 2003 put forward evidence of faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They also showed that Mann's calculations ignored the data showing a major warming trend in the 15th century, much like the warming of the 20th century.
"That discovery hit me like a bombshell," wrote one scientist in the MIT Technology Review in 2004. "Suddenly the 'hockey stick,' the poster child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."
hehe you didn't, actually you just mentioned the T word.
Tell us all about the truth HOZ.
You do realise that every post you make where you ignore my question to explain your blatant lie and/or gullibleness you only strengthen my argument whilst amplifying your own guilt.
FACT is as has been demonstrated in this thread by yourself, you have exhibited behaviour consistent of either (a) being extremely dishonest and/or (b) extremely gullible. Both characteristics not related to truth.
So ... lying or gullible? The evidence is there that you are at least one of them HOZ. Your silence isn't going to suggest anything otherwise.
Thousands of emails are stolen and taken out of context for a political agenda by deniers who base their beliefs on ideology. Deniers are frothing at the mouth but when asked for actual evidence in the emails that demonstrate something fishy they can't produce it, or when something they thought was fishy is explained in context they ignore it and continue on with their ideologically driven witch hunt.
HOZ's post is a perfect example, he's quotemined a few paragraphs and used that to imply that there's a grand coverup and it's all a lie, when in fact if you read the article there's no such thing implied. If I were a scientists and I had people with that kind of dishonesty trying to obtain the data so they could make ideologically based books and news clips that appear to refute the science when in fact they don't, I'd feel no obligation to share the data with them too. Honest scientists, sure I'll share the data. Talking head who has no science background but thinks that books are science, sorry go pound salt.
McIntyre and McKitrick are another example.. guys who work in the mining and economics industry. Their paper is published in a non-scientific journal so have not been peer reviewed, and their comments to Nature were rejected upon peer review (well not peer review, I can't remember what hoops comments go through, different than papers, but still hoops).
So basically they can say what they want in news articles and books and such without actually having their stuff come under scrutiny. Because of the popularity of their stuff their claims have come under scrutiny and have been shown false. But since their paper was never submitted to a science journal and the media rarely does any fact checking with respect to science at all, guys like M&M can have their claims repeated by the media as valid, when they aren't.
As the one link I posted says, science doesn't work despite the human ego, it works because of the human ego. One guy publishes a paper and another guy hates his guts or it threatens his theory so he does everything in his power to show the paper is flawed.. that's a good thing.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Call me convinced that something a tad fishy is going on. The tools of science can never overcome the pitfalls of the human ego.
A tad fishy? Probably.
A global conspiracy of thousands of scientists? What's your thoughts on that?
And why don't people come up with a credible alternative hypothesis or at least something that supports the null hypothesis?
Why aren't M&M off collecting their own data, doing their own analysis to forge credible criticism of the hypothesis.
Why isn't Plimer doing analysis instead of running around reproducing fraudulent graphs and coming out with ridiculous statements that serve no good at all except for entertainment factor when the likes of HOZ reproduces them as fact?
It's like politics at election time. No spin on the positive that they're going to do as instead of presenting their own case they attack the opposition in the hope people don't notice that they themselves have got nothing.
Now ... as has been mention loads and loads of times in this thread there is tonnes of data freely available for download.
If you're on the fence on the subject I'd suggest this.
Given all the data available, wait 3-4 years to see if a "decent" refutation of the hypothesis presents itself. More than enough time for a thorough analysis.
If nothing appears then start seriously questioning if they have anything at all?
Although little-known in Canada, McIntyre and McKitrick -- or M and M as they're called in climate change circles -- have since 2003 put forward evidence of faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They also showed that Mann's calculations ignored the data showing a major warming trend in the 15th century, much like the warming of the 20th century.
"That discovery hit me like a bombshell," wrote one scientist in the MIT Technology Review in 2004. "Suddenly the 'hockey stick,' the poster child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."
Yup ... old news. M & M have been slapped down on their claims numerous times. Instead of responding they do a HOZ. Loads of papers in there for you to chew over. Strange that the Citizen would report that they claim faulty calculations when their own statistics ... nm read down.
Quote:
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the “Hockey-Stick” shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis (”PCA”), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, “Journal of Climate” by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited--more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.
The tools of science can never overcome the pitfalls of the human ego.
Never? Your disdain for science has become tiresome.
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan (attributed: source unknown)
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
A global conspiracy of thousands of scientists? What's your thoughts on that?
And why don't people come up with a credible alternative hypothesis or at least something that supports the null hypothesis?
Why aren't M&M off collecting their own data, doing their own analysis to forge credible criticism of the hypothesis.
Why isn't Plimer doing analysis instead of running around reproducing fraudulent graphs and coming out with ridiculous statements that serve no good at all except for entertainment factor when the likes of HOZ reproduces them as fact?
It's like politics at election time. No spin on the positive that they're going to do as instead of presenting their own case they attack the opposition in the hope people don't notice that they themselves have got nothing.
Now ... as has been mention loads and loads of times in this thread there is tonnes of data freely available for download.
If you're on the fence on the subject I'd suggest this.
Given all the data available, wait 3-4 years to see if a "decent" refutation of the hypothesis presents itself. More than enough time for a thorough analysis.
If nothing appears then start seriously questioning if they have anything at all?
Never? Your disdain for science has become tiresome.
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan (attributed: source unknown)
