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: 217475" data-attributes="member: 195"><p>LOL.</p><p>1) My conversation with cyp should prove that I do not think "everyone who accepts global warming is a fear monger and out to take over the world." No matter how much you repeat it, it won't make it true. I've defined my limited use of Liberal Fundamentalist. I do not paint everyone with whom I disagree that way.</p><p></p><p>2) As far as your response on "conspiracy theories," you failed to actually respond to the data in the e-mails. Rather, you again make an appeal to authorities. I could probably come up with a list of critics who did find evidence of wrong-doing whom you don't trust. Also, show me where each of those 8 studies found that scientists were not conspiring to hide data from FOI requests, including the deleting of e-mails etc. (I bet you'll find that many of them find things like "no direct evidence" of wrong doing or that they don't overthrow the conclusions of climate change).</p><p></p><p>3) As far as not being able to keep a conspiracy secret, you are right. It wasn't. Even before ClimateGate, there were lots of voices being raised that the science wasn't supporting the conclusions. MIT Atmospheric Physicist Richard Lintzen a member of the IPCC complained that the executive summary of the 2001 report did not reflect the science and was not written by scientists alone. In 2005, Research Meteorologist Christopher Landsea stopped his participation in IPCC because he complained it was being driven by "preconceived agenda" and "scientifically unsound." From 2003-2005, Stephen McIntye and Ross McKitrick published, ultimately in peer-reviewed journals evidence that the "Hockey Stick" which had been used as the basis for much of the consensus was based on flawed data/modelling. Then you have the words of the scientists involved in the climategate e-mails.</p><p></p><p>So, let's not talk past each other. I accept <strong><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/" target="_blank">this list</a></strong> as representing the problems raised in the ClimateGate e-mails:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px">1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.</p><p></p><p>None of this list claims that AGW is wrong or falsified. However, it does suggest conspiracy to limit access to data, hide data, and silence alternative views. So, again, please show where the 8 investigations falsified these claims. Let's move the conversation to data not faith.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AE 87, post: 217475, member: 195"] LOL. 1) My conversation with cyp should prove that I do not think "everyone who accepts global warming is a fear monger and out to take over the world." No matter how much you repeat it, it won't make it true. I've defined my limited use of Liberal Fundamentalist. I do not paint everyone with whom I disagree that way. 2) As far as your response on "conspiracy theories," you failed to actually respond to the data in the e-mails. Rather, you again make an appeal to authorities. I could probably come up with a list of critics who did find evidence of wrong-doing whom you don't trust. Also, show me where each of those 8 studies found that scientists were not conspiring to hide data from FOI requests, including the deleting of e-mails etc. (I bet you'll find that many of them find things like "no direct evidence" of wrong doing or that they don't overthrow the conclusions of climate change). 3) As far as not being able to keep a conspiracy secret, you are right. It wasn't. Even before ClimateGate, there were lots of voices being raised that the science wasn't supporting the conclusions. MIT Atmospheric Physicist Richard Lintzen a member of the IPCC complained that the executive summary of the 2001 report did not reflect the science and was not written by scientists alone. In 2005, Research Meteorologist Christopher Landsea stopped his participation in IPCC because he complained it was being driven by "preconceived agenda" and "scientifically unsound." From 2003-2005, Stephen McIntye and Ross McKitrick published, ultimately in peer-reviewed journals evidence that the "Hockey Stick" which had been used as the basis for much of the consensus was based on flawed data/modelling. Then you have the words of the scientists involved in the climategate e-mails. So, let's not talk past each other. I accept [B][URL='http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/']this list[/URL][/B] as representing the problems raised in the ClimateGate e-mails: [INDENT]1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site. 2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”. 3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2. 4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.[/INDENT] None of this list claims that AGW is wrong or falsified. However, it does suggest conspiracy to limit access to data, hide data, and silence alternative views. So, again, please show where the 8 investigations falsified these claims. Let's move the conversation to data not faith. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
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