Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AE 87" data-source="post: 217325" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>[USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER] </p><p></p><p>Okay, let me respond to your approach to the conversation.</p><p>1) You claim that I cast everyone who disagrees with me Fundamentalist Liberal. That's simply not the case. Consider this conversation that I had with [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] a while back:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><a href="https://gtswarm.com/threads/noaa-nasa-2014-warmest-year-on-record.5995/" target="_blank">https://gtswarm.com/threads/noaa-nasa-2014-warmest-year-on-record.5995/</a></p><p>That's what discussing data looks like. I think that he and I may agree that ultimately the data is currently inconclusive, but we disagree in that he's more sympathetic to AGW being a problem than I am. I do not consider him a fundamentalist liberal even though we disagree on how much we should accept the so-called consensus on AGW.</p><p>2) You misunderstand my linking of Judith Curry. I do not link her as authority to be trusted by faith but rather as a source of information to be discussed.</p><p>3) Your digression on conspiracy theories is off-point. You cannot conclude because some conspiracy theories are based on fear and wild speculation that no conspiracies exist. That's not logical. In the case of ClimateGate, there are actual e-mails that can be discussed which refer to using Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline." A peer-reviewed article exposed crass errors in Mann's hockey stick. As was linked earlier, there was a computer program which included within the hack where the programmer's notes reveal that he knew he was producing illegitimate results after 1960. There were e-mail exchanges where one scientist wants to know where the data for post 1970 used in a report was coming from because he couldn't duplicate the charts and was put off. </p><p>4) Consequently, unless you are actually willing to discuss data, your assertion about what my threshold of proof would be is a straw man. </p><p></p><p>So, if you would prefer to discuss data rather than use ad hominem and straw man arguments. We can start with the post that I included earlier in this thread:</p><p></p><p></p><p>That 2001 IPCC chart was produced, in part, by scientists involved in the climategate e-mails. With respect to ClimateGate, I can read e-mails that talk about deleting data and deleting e-mails to keep them from Freedom Of Information requests and know that research paid-for by tax dollars shouldn't be covered up this way. When you read e-mail exchanges where one scientist is complaining that he can't find the data sets to support published findings, and he's getting a run around about where the data is coming from, I can say that that's a bad deal. When you have one climate scientist saying in an e-mail, "The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t," it's pretty clear that they are not objective scientists.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 217325, member: 195"] [USER=1640]@Northeast Stinger[/USER] Okay, let me respond to your approach to the conversation. 1) You claim that I cast everyone who disagrees with me Fundamentalist Liberal. That's simply not the case. Consider this conversation that I had with [USER=323]@cyptomcat[/USER] a while back: [INDENT][URL]https://gtswarm.com/threads/noaa-nasa-2014-warmest-year-on-record.5995/[/URL][/INDENT] That's what discussing data looks like. I think that he and I may agree that ultimately the data is currently inconclusive, but we disagree in that he's more sympathetic to AGW being a problem than I am. I do not consider him a fundamentalist liberal even though we disagree on how much we should accept the so-called consensus on AGW. 2) You misunderstand my linking of Judith Curry. I do not link her as authority to be trusted by faith but rather as a source of information to be discussed. 3) Your digression on conspiracy theories is off-point. You cannot conclude because some conspiracy theories are based on fear and wild speculation that no conspiracies exist. That's not logical. In the case of ClimateGate, there are actual e-mails that can be discussed which refer to using Mann's "trick" to "hide the decline." A peer-reviewed article exposed crass errors in Mann's hockey stick. As was linked earlier, there was a computer program which included within the hack where the programmer's notes reveal that he knew he was producing illegitimate results after 1960. There were e-mail exchanges where one scientist wants to know where the data for post 1970 used in a report was coming from because he couldn't duplicate the charts and was put off. 4) Consequently, unless you are actually willing to discuss data, your assertion about what my threshold of proof would be is a straw man. So, if you would prefer to discuss data rather than use ad hominem and straw man arguments. We can start with the post that I included earlier in this thread: That 2001 IPCC chart was produced, in part, by scientists involved in the climategate e-mails. With respect to ClimateGate, I can read e-mails that talk about deleting data and deleting e-mails to keep them from Freedom Of Information requests and know that research paid-for by tax dollars shouldn't be covered up this way. When you read e-mail exchanges where one scientist is complaining that he can't find the data sets to support published findings, and he's getting a run around about where the data is coming from, I can say that that's a bad deal. When you have one climate scientist saying in an e-mail, "The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t," it's pretty clear that they are not objective scientists. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top