Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[skookerasbil]

 

[westwall]

That's your smoking gun?

What a maroon.

Oh, it's just one of hundreds of email exchanges reflecting lack of scientific integrity by big-name players in climate science.

Is lack of scientific integrity a good thing in the sciences?

Of course not. But look what they're up against, where any ant hill of anti-AGW evidence will be treated with equal weight of the Mt. Everest of evidence for AGW. I can sympathize with their frustration, especially with so much at stake, not that I necessarily excuse it.

Wow, your level of faith and devotion are duly noted. The fact that after 20 years of having the MSM basically report any piece of tripe they felt compelled to release and the fact that they actively prevented papers that presented evidence against AGW from entering peer review is evidence of a bias agains THEM

Dude, you are really looney.

 

[Si modo]

I didn't read that tripe he posted. Nor do I need to. I'm fairly sure Coyote's assessment is accurate. Crap like this all reads the same. Someone got a little cavalier (or so the author attempts to make it seem), ergo conclusion, the whole thing must be a hoax. Ho-hum. I take comfort in knowing the denial shit is duly marginalized where it matters.

As to bripat9643, glad you found an outlet for your frustration. Don't hurt nobody. The crap you people endorse is duly marginalized in the circles that matter.

The "tripe" you refer to are email exchanges (thus in context) of conversations among climate scientists.

The "crap" you refer to is an outrage over the lack of scientific integrity. Enemies of science find no problem with that, though.

So, what is being "denied"?

Ask skook, walleyes and bripat, and throngs of other ne'er-do-well dopes here who will tell you it's proof-positive that AGW is a conspiracy.

(incidentally, as of 2 minutes ago, skook is the first and only person I've ever put on ignore)

You've never point-blank told me you thing AGW is wrong; but you have however indicated that you don't think it's settled, and my understanding is that you believe that in the mean time we as a people should behave as if it is false. Is that correct?

You'll never see me say that AGW is wrong at this time. You'll never see me say it is right, either, at this time.

What you WILL see me say is that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance an/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Yet, there are those who claim "the science is settled".

Hmmmmmm.

 

[Cuyo]

Oh, it's just one of hundreds of email exchanges reflecting lack of scientific integrity by big-name players in climate science.

Is lack of scientific integrity a good thing in the sciences?

Of course not. But look what they're up against, where any ant hill of anti-AGW evidence will be treated with equal weight of the Mt. Everest of evidence for AGW. I can sympathize with their frustration, especially with so much at stake, not that I necessarily excuse it.

Wow, your level of faith and devotion are duly noted. The fact that after 20 years of having the MSM basically report any piece of tripe they felt compelled to release and the fact that they actively prevented papers that presented evidence against AGW from entering peer review is evidence of a bias agains THEM

Dude, you are really looney.

Ya know, at first when I started reading that post I just thought you were an idiot as usual.

BUT THEN

I saw the three cuckoo smileys. Wow. Profound dude. Touche. Touche indeed.

idiot.

 

[Si modo]

Yo.........si Modo..........back at the end of the summer I asked one single nutter to come up with a single link to show us all where the alarmists are winning??

Here we are about 9 weeks later and I see nada...........still............

Unfortunately, this has become a win/lose topic for too many.

Because it has, everyone loses, ESPECIALLY the science.

 

[westwall]

I didn't read that tripe he posted. Nor do I need to. I'm fairly sure Coyote's assessment is accurate. Crap like this all reads the same. Someone got a little cavalier (or so the author attempts to make it seem), ergo conclusion, the whole thing must be a hoax. Ho-hum. I take comfort in knowing the denial shit is duly marginalized where it matters.

As to bripat9643, glad you found an outlet for your frustration. Don't hurt nobody. The crap you people endorse is duly marginalized in the circles that matter.

The "tripe" you refer to are email exchanges (thus in context) of conversations among climate scientists.

The "crap" you refer to is an outrage over the lack of scientific integrity. Enemies of science find no problem with that, though.

So, what is being "denied"?

Ask skook, walleyes and bripat, and throngs of other ne'er-do-well dopes here who will tell you it's proof-positive that AGW is a conspiracy.

(incidentally, as of 2 minutes ago, skook is the first and only person I've ever put on ignore)

You've never point-blank told me you thing AGW is wrong; but you have however indicated that you don't think it's settled, and my understanding is that you believe that in the mean time we as a people should behave as if it is false. Is that correct?

No, we'll show you a small group of highly placed scientists who have determined the meme of the climate reporting in the MSM for two decades. And now with these emails that have been released we have absolute proof of that fact. Conspiracy? Yes, absolutely, as evidenced by their own emails.

You still havn't linked to a single piece of empirical data that shows man is causing the warming. Why is that?

 

[westwall]

Yo.........si Modo..........back at the end of the summer I asked one single nutter to come up with a single link to show us all where the alarmists are winning??

Here we are about 9 weeks later and I see nada...........still............

Unfortunately, this has become a win/lose topic for too many.

Because it has, everyone loses, ESPECIALLY the science.

Exactly. We have a clear case of scientific fraud. We have clear evidence of the corruption of the peer review process. And because the climatologists won't police themselves, ALL OF SCIENCE is going to pay the price for these fools.

 

[Cuyo]

The "tripe" you refer to are email exchanges (thus in context) of conversations among climate scientists.

The "crap" you refer to is an outrage over the lack of scientific integrity. Enemies of science find no problem with that, though.

So, what is being "denied"?

Ask skook, walleyes and bripat, and throngs of other ne'er-do-well dopes here who will tell you it's proof-positive that AGW is a conspiracy.

(incidentally, as of 2 minutes ago, skook is the first and only person I've ever put on ignore)

You've never point-blank told me you thing AGW is wrong; but you have however indicated that you don't think it's settled, and my understanding is that you believe that in the mean time we as a people should behave as if it is false. Is that correct?

You'll never see me say that AGW is wrong at this time. You'll never see me say it is right, either, at this time.

What you WILL see me say is that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance an/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Yet, there are those who claim "the science is settled".

Hmmmmmm.

Fine, so what should we do? That's the real debate, isn't it? What good is knowing what is, if we don't determine what we should do?

Should we behave as though it is false, ie, no new restrictions on emissions and/or roll back old restrictions, etc? Or should we heed the warning and start to take it into account for making these decisions?

I find that most of the proposed programs to curtail global warming are good ideas even absent global warming, eg efficiency, reduced consumption, mileage standards, and especially research into alternative/green/renewable energy, because like bacteria in a petri dish we're consuming the resource that's keeping us alive at an alarming rate. But that aside, just a simple answer. Should global warming play into our decision making? Or should we behave as if it's false and/or out of our control?

edit: Katie won't stop bothering me so I guess I'll catch you in the AM.

 

[Si modo]

Ask skook, walleyes and bripat, and throngs of other ne'er-do-well dopes here who will tell you it's proof-positive that AGW is a conspiracy.

(incidentally, as of 2 minutes ago, skook is the first and only person I've ever put on ignore)

You've never point-blank told me you thing AGW is wrong; but you have however indicated that you don't think it's settled, and my understanding is that you believe that in the mean time we as a people should behave as if it is false. Is that correct?

You'll never see me say that AGW is wrong at this time. You'll never see me say it is right, either, at this time.

What you WILL see me say is that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance an/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Yet, there are those who claim "the science is settled".

Hmmmmmm.

Fine, so what should we do? That's the real debate, isn't it? What good is knowing what is, if we don't determine what we should do?

....

How can we determine what to do about a problem if we don't know if there is a problem?

I would respond to the rest of your post which is reasonable, but it seems as if this is a classic case of the cart before the horse.

 

[Si modo]

Yo.........si Modo..........back at the end of the summer I asked one single nutter to come up with a single link to show us all where the alarmists are winning??

Here we are about 9 weeks later and I see nada...........still............

Unfortunately, this has become a win/lose topic for too many.

Because it has, everyone loses, ESPECIALLY the science.

Exactly. We have a clear case of scientific fraud. We have clear evidence of the corruption of the peer review process. And because the climatologists won't police themselves, ALL OF SCIENCE is going to pay the price for these fools.

Right. And there are more than a few of us who are not pleased with these sorts of shenanigans at all and who are speaking out quite vociferously.

It is an insult to all science.

 

[Cuyo]

You'll never see me say that AGW is wrong at this time. You'll never see me say it is right, either, at this time.

What you WILL see me say is that the state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the significance an/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

Yet, there are those who claim "the science is settled".

Hmmmmmm.

Fine, so what should we do? That's the real debate, isn't it? What good is knowing what is, if we don't determine what we should do?

....

How can we determine what to do about a problem if we don't know if there is a problem?

I would respond to the rest of your post which is reasonable, but it seems as if this is a classic case of the cart before the horse.

Science has time and again come to the conclusion that mans activities are warming the earth, and there is no scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion. You've just stated that we 'don't know if there is a problem,' but surely you agree its been claimed and that compelling evidence exists. You're no as moved by this evidence as me or the scientific community at large; fine, but you agree it exists, yes?

So what do we do? It's a reasonable question under the circumstances. Since it's not a satisfactory conclusion in your eyes, do you advocate that we go about our business as though our activities are not warming the earth?

 

[Si modo]

Fine, so what should we do? That's the real debate, isn't it? What good is knowing what is, if we don't determine what we should do?

....

How can we determine what to do about a problem if we don't know if there is a problem?

I would respond to the rest of your post which is reasonable, but it seems as if this is a classic case of the cart before the horse.

Science has time and again come to the conclusion that mans activities are warming the earth, and there is no scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion. You've just stated that we 'don't know if there is a problem,' but surely you agree its been claimed and that compelling evidence exists. You're no as moved by this evidence as me or the scientific community at large; fine, but you agree it exists, yes?

....

No. I don't agree compelling evidence exists. I have yet to see any evidence where there is any science supporting the magnitude of significance of man made CO2 on any warming. The state of the science is not at that point where it can.

I HAVE seen many have a belief that it is. That is true. But, this is a scientific question, not a question of faith.

.... So what do we do? It's a reasonable question under the circumstances. Since it's not a satisfactory conclusion in your eyes, do you advocate that we go about our business as though our activities are not warming the earth?

It is a reasonable question. And we should talk about the possibility of doing something, IF there is a problem.

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunately, this has become a win/lose topic for too many.

Because it has, everyone loses, ESPECIALLY the science.

we all lose big time if the warmist kookburgers get their way. In other words, it is a win/lose topic.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yup, that's scientific integrity, right?

Can you speak in complete, coherent thoughts?

OK. Is that email reflective of scientific integrity by Mann?

Looks like evidence of one scientist questioning the details of the work of another. Happens all the time in all sciences. That's kinda how its done.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And what is being "denied"?

I didn't read that tripe he posted. Nor do I need to. I'm fairly sure Coyote's assessment is accurate. Crap like this all reads the same. Someone got a little cavalier (or so the author attempts to make it seem), ergo conclusion, the whole thing must be a hoax. Ho-hum. I take comfort in knowing the denial shit is duly marginalized where it matters.

As to bripat9643, glad you found an outlet for your frustration. Don't hurt nobody. The crap you people endorse is duly marginalized in the circles that matter.

The "tripe" you refer to are email exchanges (thus in context) of conversations among climate scientists.

The "crap" you refer to is an outrage over the lack of scientific integrity. Enemies of science find no problem with that, though.

So, what is being "denied"?

I've yet to see them posted in context. You probably couldn't even explain to us exactly what it is they are talking about in that email, either.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yup, that's scientific integrity, right?

Can you speak in complete, coherent thoughts?

Why bother? You're not capable of understanding them.

Whenever you guys are ready to explain to us all what the problem is, rather than posting links to bloggers who say things like "critics say" as if that has any authority at all - let me know.

 

[wirebender]

Of course not. But look what they're up against, where any ant hill of anti-AGW evidence will be treated with equal weight of the Mt. Everest of evidence for AGW. I can sympathize with their frustration, especially with so much at stake, not that I necessarily excuse it.

They are up against science. I can understand their defensiveness. When you have perpetrated a multi billion dollar hoax and it starts unravelling, of course you might get defensive and scared.

As to evidence; there is no actual evidence to support the claim that the activities of man are responsible for the changing global climate.

Here is a very basic question for you. In fact, it is so fundamental that if there were a scientific basis for AGW alarmism, every warmist on the planet would have a ready answer and yet, my question will, as always go unanswered by you, and any other warmer I ask it of. Ready?

Which physical law(s) support and predict a greenhouse effect as described by climate science?

 

[wirebender]

Fine, so what should we do? That's the real debate, isn't it? What good is knowing what is, if we don't determine what we should do?

What should we do? Hell guy, that is an easy one. In fact, it is what we should have been doing all along. I say we, but I really mean warmists. Skeptics have been doing it all along which is why they are skeptics. The thing that must be done is return to basic science. Name the physical law(s) that support and predict climate change due to the release of so called greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Should we behave as though it is false, ie, no new restrictions on emissions and/or roll back old restrictions, etc? Or should we heed the warning and start to take it into account for making these decisions?

Till a physical law can be named and a rational explanation as to how it supports and predicts the claims of those advocating catastrophic climate change, of course we should behave as if it were false. If you are claiming an event not supported or predicted by any physical law, you are selling snake oil.

I find that most of the proposed programs to curtail global warming are good ideas even absent global warming,

Of course you do because they represent the advancement of socialism.

eg efficiency, reduced consumption, mileage standards,

All of those prove disasterous to both industry and individual safety. Mileage standards in particular result in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year because an alluminum can affords little protection in a collision. Do you put your children in one of those death traps with a clear conscience?

 

[wirebender]

Science has time and again come to the conclusion that mans activities are warming the earth, and there is no scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion. You've just stated that we 'don't know if there is a problem,' but surely you agree its been claimed and that compelling evidence exists. You're no as moved by this evidence as me or the scientific community at large; fine, but you agree it exists, yes?

Well, you are partly right. There isn't a political head of any scientific body that doesn't agree with AGW alarmism. Political heads, however don't represent science. Political heads are there to facilitate funding and recruiting, not do science.

The fact that none of those political heads has been able to name a physical law that supports and predicts the manmade climate change they endorse in thier pseudoscientific political statements should tell you something about the validity of thier collective positions.

So what do we do? It's a reasonable question under the circumstances.

What do we do? We go back to basics and ask the hard questions. If there are no rational answers, then we simply write it off in the same manner as we wrote off eugenics and the host of other examples of "consensus science" that proved to be little more than mass hysteria.

 

[Cuyo]

Science has time and again come to the conclusion that mans activities are warming the earth, and there is no scientific body on the planet that maintains a dissenting opinion. You've just stated that we 'don't know if there is a problem,' but surely you agree its been claimed and that compelling evidence exists. You're no as moved by this evidence as me or the scientific community at large; fine, but you agree it exists, yes?

Well, you are partly right. There isn't a political head of any scientific body that doesn't agree with AGW alarmism. Political heads, however don't represent science. Political heads are there to facilitate funding and recruiting, not do science.

The fact that none of those political heads has been able to name a physical law that supports and predicts the manmade climate change they endorse in thier pseudoscientific political statements should tell you something about the validity of thier collective positions.

So what do we do? It's a reasonable question under the circumstances.

What do we do? We go back to basics and ask the hard questions. If there are no rational answers, then we simply write it off in the same manner as we wrote off eugenics and the host of other examples of "consensus science" that proved to be little more than mass hysteria.

What are you talking about with this "Go back to basics" jibber jabber? A new neighborhood just went up and we have to power these homes. Is it your position that we should just fire up a new coal turbine and assume that no damage is being done?

That's the question. You're all saying consensus is unscientific and exaggerated. So while whatever 'real' science that will ultimately meet your standard of proof is being performed, do we base our current activities under the assumption that there is no AGW, or do we take AGW under consideration?

The question doesn't get any more 'basic' than that.