Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[konradv]

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.

The reasons for the theory have been given repeatedly. Quit lying! If there's anything pseudoscientific going on, it's your refusal to explain what happens to energy absorbed by added CO2. You want us to ignore Conservation of Energy!

 

[westwall]

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.

The difference of course being the unwillingness to release the raw data sets so their work can be corroborated. As a doctoral candidate why is that a bad thing? Use your own words. I will check for plagiarism.

 

[westwall]

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.

The problem with running off and fixing a problem that doesn't exist is the unintended consequences. I keep bringing up the MTBE fiasco because it is the most recent example of the faultiness of your type of thinking. Sometimes it really is the best policy to do nothing.

You don't believe that. As Wirebender pointed out. The policies you support lead to increased highway fatalities and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased deaths in the Third World, and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased hunger in the world, and there is no need for that.

Do you see a pattern developing? The one thing that is happening amidst all the carnage and death is governmental power is expanding. At the expense of innocent lives all over the world and provable environmental damage that need not occur. You seem to believe the mantra that green energy is clean.

It's demonstrably not. Why do you think the solar companies are building their plants in the third world? It's so they can keep the manpower costs down and not have to worry about the US and the First Worlds environmental regulations. Solar panel construction is one of the most polluting industries on the planet, you don't see it, thus you can ignore it.

 

[westwall]

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.

The reasons for the theory have been given repeatedly. Quit lying! If there's anything pseudoscientific going on, it's your refusal to explain what happens to energy absorbed by added CO2. You want us to ignore Conservation of Energy!

You don't even know what that means konny, and that is truly sad.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Honestly, I have no idea where you are getting that doctorate you claim to be getting in physics, but I assure you that every scientist I know in academia (that is quite a few, too) would not eliminate data that does not support their thesis, nor would they conceal it. They would acknowledge the contradictions and get back into the lab. And, that work would be another publication for them.

Yup, transparency is a huge part of scientific integrity. One doesn't hide data that contradicts the thesis.

And, if you really are a student of any of the sciences, you would know that.

Thus, my doubt that you are, based on your posts indicating your lack of knowledge of scientific integrity.

 

[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"?

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.

Follow the links you've been provided. The latest batches of conversations are there.

Climategate 2.0 is here! (Last updated at 02:01 am on 12-05) | JunkScience.com

Your lack of curiosity about the science is out of character for a scientist.

 

[Cuyo]

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.



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.

The problem with running off and fixing a problem that doesn't exist is the unintended consequences. I keep bringing up the MTBE fiasco because it is the most recent example of the faultiness of your type of thinking. Sometimes it really is the best policy to do nothing.

You don't believe that. As Wirebender pointed out. The policies you support lead to increased highway fatalities and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased deaths in the Third World, and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased hunger in the world, and there is no need for that.

Do you see a pattern developing? The one thing that is happening amidst all the carnage and death is governmental power is expanding. At the expense of innocent lives all over the world and provable environmental damage that need not occur. You seem to believe the mantra that green energy is clean.

It's demonstrably not. Why do you think the solar companies are building their plants in the third world? It's so they can keep the manpower costs down and not have to worry about the US and the First Worlds environmental regulations. Solar panel construction is one of the most polluting industries on the planet, you don't see it, thus you can ignore it.

I think that's as close to an answer as I'm going to get, and it appears to be "No, the possibility of AGW should not be taken into account when making decisions." That's precisely the attitude I can't wrap my head around.

And of course I knew it was your answer. I'd like to hear it from Si Modo, who doesn't beat the "It's fake" drum so much as the "We're just not sure" drum. (I'd ask you privately Modo but you seem to have that feature turned off)

 

[Si modo]

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.

The problem with running off and fixing a problem that doesn't exist is the unintended consequences. I keep bringing up the MTBE fiasco because it is the most recent example of the faultiness of your type of thinking. Sometimes it really is the best policy to do nothing.

You don't believe that. As Wirebender pointed out. The policies you support lead to increased highway fatalities and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased deaths in the Third World, and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased hunger in the world, and there is no need for that.

Do you see a pattern developing? The one thing that is happening amidst all the carnage and death is governmental power is expanding. At the expense of innocent lives all over the world and provable environmental damage that need not occur. You seem to believe the mantra that green energy is clean.

It's demonstrably not. Why do you think the solar companies are building their plants in the third world? It's so they can keep the manpower costs down and not have to worry about the US and the First Worlds environmental regulations. Solar panel construction is one of the most polluting industries on the planet, you don't see it, thus you can ignore it.

I think that's as close to an answer as I'm going to get, and it appears to be "No, the possibility of AGW should not be taken into account when making decisions." That's precisely the attitude I can't wrap my head around.

And of course I knew it was your answer. I'd like to hear it from Si Modo, who doesn't beat the "It's fake" drum so much as the "We're just not sure" drum. (I'd ask you privately Modo but you seem to have that feature turned off)

You're kidding? I have it turned off?

I've gotten PMs from folks who are not on my contact list before. Lemme check it again. I'll stop that restriction if it is on. Gimme a couple or three minutes to do that.


ETA: I checked and I've have my PMs turned on and no restrictions on it. Please try again.

 

[Cuyo]

The problem with running off and fixing a problem that doesn't exist is the unintended consequences. I keep bringing up the MTBE fiasco because it is the most recent example of the faultiness of your type of thinking. Sometimes it really is the best policy to do nothing.

You don't believe that. As Wirebender pointed out. The policies you support lead to increased highway fatalities and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased deaths in the Third World, and there is no need for them. The policies you support lead to increased hunger in the world, and there is no need for that.

Do you see a pattern developing? The one thing that is happening amidst all the carnage and death is governmental power is expanding. At the expense of innocent lives all over the world and provable environmental damage that need not occur. You seem to believe the mantra that green energy is clean.

It's demonstrably not. Why do you think the solar companies are building their plants in the third world? It's so they can keep the manpower costs down and not have to worry about the US and the First Worlds environmental regulations. Solar panel construction is one of the most polluting industries on the planet, you don't see it, thus you can ignore it.

I think that's as close to an answer as I'm going to get, and it appears to be "No, the possibility of AGW should not be taken into account when making decisions." That's precisely the attitude I can't wrap my head around.

And of course I knew it was your answer. I'd like to hear it from Si Modo, who doesn't beat the "It's fake" drum so much as the "We're just not sure" drum. (I'd ask you privately Modo but you seem to have that feature turned off)

You're kidding? I have it turned off?

I've gotten PMs from folks who are not on my contact list before. Lemme check it again. I'll stop that restriction if it is on. Gimme a couple or three minutes to do that.


ETA: I checked and I've have my PMs turned on and no restrictions on it. Please try again.

Nope, on someone's profile there's usually a "Contact Info" tab among others, yours (for me) has only "Friends" and "Statistics." For the few PM's I've sent this is how I've done it, if there's another way to navigate to it I'm unaware.

 

[wirebender]

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?

Personally, I favor nuclear, but if coal is best, then sure, put up another coal plant. Till climate science can name a physical law that supports and predicts the effect on the climate that they claim CO2 poses, none of thier hand wringing should be taken seriously. I can't help but note that you didn't answer the very basic question I asked. Not to worry though, bigger fish than you have failed to answer as well which is why I remain very skeptical of any claims that man is effecting the global climate.

That's the question. You're all saying consensus is unscientific and exaggerated.

There is no consensus. That myth was completely debunked. The so called 98% consensus turned out to be about 77 pseudoscientists. Here is the truth about your so called consensus.

Global Warming: A 98% Consensus Of Nothing - Forbes

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?

Considering the fact that there doesn't exist one shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a real link between the activities of man and the changing global climate, and the fact that nothing that is going on in the present climate is even beginning to approach the outermost borders of narual variability, and the fact that no physical law either supports or predicts anthropogenic climate change as described and predicted by warmists, what else should a reasonable person do other than take the whole thing to be nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by a few people with political goals?

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

Wrong. The most basic question is what physical law(s) support and predict anthropogenic causes for global climate change. If there is no rational proveable answer for that question, then there is no reason to take the rest seriously.

 

[wirebender]

The reasons for the theory have been given repeatedly. Quit lying! If there's anything pseudoscientific going on, it's your refusal to explain what happens to energy absorbed by added CO2. You want us to ignore Conservation of Energy!

There is no theory konradv. There is a piss poor hypothesis that, to date, remains unsupported by even the most tenuous shred of actual observable, repeatable evidence.

I can easily name several physical laws that state quite clearly that AGW as described by warmists can not be happening. Do you ever stop to wonder why you guys remain unable to name even one physical law that supports your belief?

And the conservation of energy is in opposition to AGW alarmism. Backradiation, which is the cornerstone of AGW alarmism is in violation of the law of conservation of energy. Of course, you have already been told that numerous times and the reasons have been explained to you in detail, but your faith drives you to continue telling the lie none the less.

What happens to the energy absorbed by CO2 is that it is immediately emitted as evidenced by the emission spectra of CO2. It has no capacity to retain energy. The second law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzman law is why none of that energy is returned to the surface of the earth.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

The difference of course being the unwillingness to release the raw data sets so their work can be corroborated. As a doctoral candidate why is that a bad thing? Use your own words. I will check for plagiarism.

?

Sorry but the following email - the only one so far that anyone has presented to me and argued is evidence of wrongdoing - doesn't say anything about the fate of raw data sets. Outside of context its hard to tell even what they are talking about.

To: Gabi hegerl; klaus hasselmann

cc: Prof.dr. Hans von storch; myles allen; francis; reiner schnur; phil jones; tom crowley; nathan gillett; david karoly; jesse kenyon; [email protected]; pennell, william t; tett, simon; ben santer; karl taylor; stott, peter; bamzai, anjuli

subject: Re: Spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. For instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 eofs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. Then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. Best, tim

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Honestly, I have no idea where you are getting that doctorate you claim to be getting in physics,

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College - Department of Physics and Astronomy

but I assure you that every scientist I know in academia (that is quite a few, too) would not eliminate data that does not support their thesis, nor would they conceal it.

Great. Sounds good to me.

They would acknowledge the contradictions and get back into the lab. And, that work would be another publication for them.

Oh yeah, because publications come that easy. You just need one piece of data - and boom - paper!

Yup, transparency is a huge part of scientific integrity. One doesn't hide data that contradicts the thesis.

Great. Relevance of your comments please?

And, if you really are a student of any of the sciences, you would know that.

Since you're not a student of any of the sciences - how the fuck would you know what I need to know?

Thus, my doubt that you are, based on your posts indicating your lack of knowledge of scientific integrity.

You're invited to attend my graduation ceremony. its at 11:45 AM at the LSU Rec Center, Dec 16. I'll be the tall one whose professor doesn't walk up with him, because my professor will be sitting on stage next to the Dean.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Follow the links you've been provided. The latest batches of conversations are there.

Climategate 2.0 is here! (Last updated at 02:01 am on 12-05) | JunkScience.com

Your lack of curiosity about the science is out of character for a scientist.

If you can't explain the evidence in your own words and quote the pieces of evidence that support your opinion and tell me why, don't even bother. I don't come to this message board just to read suggested links, I come to have conversations about stuff with folks who actually take the time to understand what the stuff is they are talking about instead of just posting links and saying "see, look! Huh! What now?" I already know your opinion is whatever the denialist blogs say your opinion is.

 

[konradv]

The reasons for the theory have been given repeatedly. Quit lying! If there's anything pseudoscientific going on, it's your refusal to explain what happens to energy absorbed by added CO2. You want us to ignore Conservation of Energy!

There is no theory konradv. There is a piss poor hypothesis that, to date, remains unsupported by even the most tenuous shred of actual observable, repeatable evidence.

I can easily name several physical laws that state quite clearly that AGW as described by warmists can not be happening. Do you ever stop to wonder why you guys remain unable to name even one physical law that supports your belief?

And the conservation of energy is in opposition to AGW alarmism. Backradiation, which is the cornerstone of AGW alarmism is in violation of the law of conservation of energy. Of course, you have already been told that numerous times and the reasons have been explained to you in detail, but your faith drives you to continue telling the lie none the less.

What happens to the energy absorbed by CO2 is that it is immediately emitted as evidenced by the emission spectra of CO2. It has no capacity to retain energy. The second law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzman law is why none of that energy is returned to the surface of the earth.

I don't believe you're applying those laws correctly to this situation. Please show how it isn't possible for a photon re-emitted by a CO2 molecule to travel towards earth. DO NOT use mathematical formulas in your answer. If you're correct, you should be able to lay this to rest solely by describing the mechanism.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Follow the links you've been provided. The latest batches of conversations are there.

Climategate 2.0 is here! (Last updated at 02:01 am on 12-05) | JunkScience.com

Your lack of curiosity about the science is out of character for a scientist.

If you can't explain the evidence in your own words and quote the pieces of evidence that support your opinion and tell me why, don't even bother. I don't come to this message board just to read suggested links, I come to have conversations about stuff with folks who actually take the time to understand what the stuff is they are talking about instead of just posting links and saying "see, look! Huh! What now?" I already know your opinion is whatever the denialist blogs say your opinion is.

But, we have described the scientific misconduct several times already.

 

[Si modo]

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.

Honestly, I have no idea where you are getting that doctorate you claim to be getting in physics,

Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College - Department of Physics and Astronomy



Great. Sounds good to me.



Oh yeah, because publications come that easy. You just need one piece of data - and boom - paper!

Great. Relevance of your comments please?

And, if you really are a student of any of the sciences, you would know that.

Since you're not a student of any of the sciences - how the fuck would you know what I need to know?

Thus, my doubt that you are, based on your posts indicating your lack of knowledge of scientific integrity.

You're invited to attend my graduation ceremony. its at 11:45 AM at the LSU Rec Center, Dec 16. I'll be the tall one whose professor doesn't walk up with him, because my professor will be sitting on stage next to the Dean.

Yet, you defend scientific misconduct.

How odd.

 

[konradv]

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.

Follow the links you've been provided. The latest batches of conversations are there.

Climategate 2.0 is here! (Last updated at 02:01 am on 12-05) | JunkScience.com

Your lack of curiosity about the science is out of character for a scientist.

If you can't explain the evidence in your own words and quote the pieces of evidence that support your opinion and tell me why, don't even bother. I don't come to this message board just to read suggested links, I come to have conversations about stuff with folks who actually take the time to understand what the stuff is they are talking about instead of just posting links and saying "see, look! Huh! What now?" I already know your opinion is whatever the denialist blogs say your opinion is.

Read several myself and have yet to find anything like a smoking gun. It seems the ONLY way this Climategate charge flies is, if you totally twist the meaning of what was said. Then, you have to ignore the fact that the skeptic/denier side politicized the issue in the first place and climatologists are merely responding to that. The skeptics are totally clutching at straws, if they think the emails prove anything except that science has been under attack.

 

[konradv]

Follow the links you've been provided. The latest batches of conversations are there.

Climategate 2.0 is here! (Last updated at 02:01 am on 12-05) | JunkScience.com

Your lack of curiosity about the science is out of character for a scientist.

If you can't explain the evidence in your own words and quote the pieces of evidence that support your opinion and tell me why, don't even bother. I don't come to this message board just to read suggested links, I come to have conversations about stuff with folks who actually take the time to understand what the stuff is they are talking about instead of just posting links and saying "see, look! Huh! What now?" I already know your opinion is whatever the denialist blogs say your opinion is.

But, we have described the scientific misconduct several times already.

Since when have 'described' and 'twisted' become synonyms?

 

[Cuyo]

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?

Personally, I favor nuclear, but if coal is best, then sure, put up another coal plant. Till climate science can name a physical law that supports and predicts the effect on the climate that they claim CO2 poses, none of thier hand wringing should be taken seriously. I can't help but note that you didn't answer the very basic question I asked. Not to worry though, bigger fish than you have failed to answer as well which is why I remain very skeptical of any claims that man is effecting the global climate.

The correlation alone is "Something," and most agree something profound. I'm no scientist but I don't think they make this shit up. You're unconvinced, and always will be, because you seek evidence for your own foregone conclusion. Nothing will meet your standard of proof, you will just add some more clever adjectives whereby you can technically satiate your own POV.

That's the question. You're all saying consensus is unscientific and exaggerated.

There is no consensus. That myth was completely debunked. The so called 98% consensus turned out to be about 77 pseudoscientists. Here is the truth about your so called consensus.

Global Warming: A 98% Consensus Of Nothing - Forbes

'The Truth' is an op-ed on Forbes.com? Again, seeking evidence from nefarious sources to support your own foregone conclusion. If you did an honest search to obtain information on the topic, you'd find that dissent within the scientific community is virtually non-existent.

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?

Considering the fact that there doesn't exist one shred of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a real link between the activities of man and the changing global climate, and the fact that nothing that is going on in the present climate is even beginning to approach the outermost borders of narual variability, and the fact that no physical law either supports or predicts anthropogenic climate change as described and predicted by warmists, what else should a reasonable person do other than take the whole thing to be nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by a few people with political goals?

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

Wrong. The most basic question is what physical law(s) support and predict anthropogenic causes for global climate change. If there is no rational proveable answer for that question, then there is no reason to take the rest seriously.

Whatever. If we had two earths I'd be happy to let you and yours have one of them and we "Alarmists" could have the other, then there'd be no reason to have the discussion in the public sphere. Of course we don't however, so society's decisions affect all of us.

IMO the 'Hoaxers' such as yourself are going to look as silly as moon landing hoaxers in a few years, but I can stipulate that I could be wrong. Can you? No, you can't, as you've just shown you believe any human activities should weigh decisions with the assumption that you're right; Meanwhile, most of the scientific community says "You're wrong," a small number says "We're not sure," and virtually NONE say "You're right." But you're emotional attachment to your beliefs bars you from seeing that.