Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

[Si modo]

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?

Never.

But, if you defend scientific misconduct, and see no value in scientific integrity, then YOU are an enemy of science.

 

[Si modo]

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.

You've been provided email conversations which clearly indicate other climate scientists having issue with Mann's lack of transparency and deliberate exclusion of results in this thread alone.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

I've yet to see anyone provide email evidence of it without fully explaining it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

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.

How am I defending scientific misconduct?

Why is it none of you denialists every feel the need to actually justify your statements with evidence?

 

[Si modo]

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?

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



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.

How am I defending scientific misconduct?

Why is it none of you denialists every feel the need to actually justify your statements with evidence?

*sigh*

Do you see a problem with Mann's deliberate intent to exclude contradictory data? Tim Barnett of Scripps does, because it is scientific misconduct.

So, do you see a problem with that single example? Yes or no.

And, what am I "denying"?

Just two questions. That shouldn't tax you too much.

 

[Meister]

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.

I've yet to see anyone provide email evidence of it without fully explaining it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/131927-smokong-gun-in-climategate-emails.html

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yet, you defend scientific misconduct.

How odd.

How am I defending scientific misconduct?

Why is it none of you denialists every feel the need to actually justify your statements with evidence?

*sigh*

Do you see a problem with Mann's deliberate intent to exclude contradictory data? Tim Barnett of Scripps does, because it is scientific misconduct.

Where does Tim Barnett of Scripps state he has a problem with it because it is scientific misconduct?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

I've yet to see anyone provide email evidence of it without fully explaining it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/131927-smokong-gun-in-climategate-emails.html

More links. Can't make the case yourself, can you?

 

[Si modo]

How am I defending scientific misconduct?

Why is it none of you denialists every feel the need to actually justify your statements with evidence?

*sigh*

Do you see a problem with Mann's deliberate intent to exclude contradictory data? Tim Barnett of Scripps does, because it is scientific misconduct.

Where does Tim Barnett of Scripps state he has a problem with it because it is scientific misconduct?

It was posted already.

But, it is clear you are willing to sell out scientific integrity for partisan hackery.

Crystal.

 

[konradv]

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

I've yet to see anyone provide email evidence of it without fully explaining it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/131927-smokong-gun-in-climategate-emails.html

LOL!!! That thread isn't proof of anything, except that the skeptics/deniers will do anything to twist what was said.

 

[Meister]

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

You want facts....well, let them bitch slap you in the face.

Hell, you don't believe the rest of these posters, so the only thing I can bring is the evidence you requested...anything more that I say, you won't believe.

 

[Meister]

I've yet to see anyone provide email evidence of it without fully explaining it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/131927-smokong-gun-in-climategate-emails.html

LOL!!! That thread isn't proof of anything, except that the skeptics/deniers will do anything to twist what was said.

riiiight.

 

[Meister]

Climate Emails: Science and Candor - WSJ.com

Some more good read for you

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

*sigh*

Do you see a problem with Mann's deliberate intent to exclude contradictory data? Tim Barnett of Scripps does, because it is scientific misconduct.

Where does Tim Barnett of Scripps state he has a problem with it because it is scientific misconduct?

It was posted already.

But, it is clear you are willing to sell out scientific integrity for partisan hackery.

Crystal.

It was posted already? Really? Because its not here:

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

Where does Tim Scrips accuse anyone of "scientific misconduct" in this email? he doesn't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

You want facts....well, let them bitch slap you in the face.

Hell, you don't believe the rest of these poster, so the only thing I can bring is the evidence you requested...anything more that I say, you won't believe.

Wow, a big oil funded global warming denialist is making accusations of fraud, how surprising.

if anything, the presence of a known skeptic on the IPCC is indicative of an intent to include a cross section of all scientists who study the climate, regardless of their view

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Climate Emails: Science and Candor - WSJ.com

Some more good read for you

Why don't you read first it and get back to us.

 

[Si modo]

Where does Tim Barnett of Scripps state he has a problem with it because it is scientific misconduct?

It was posted already.

But, it is clear you are willing to sell out scientific integrity for partisan hackery.

Crystal.

It was posted already? Really? Because its not here:

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

Where does Tim Scrips accuse anyone of "scientific misconduct" in this email? he doesn't.

What the hell?
Are you under the influence of something?

There is no Tim Scrips.

There is a Scripps Research Institute and Tim Barnett is there. And, the fact that you don't know about the Scripps Research Institute tells me all I need to know about the veracity of much of anything you post.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It was posted already.

But, it is clear you are willing to sell out scientific integrity for partisan hackery.

Crystal.

It was posted already? Really? Because its not here:

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

Where does Tim Scrips accuse anyone of "scientific misconduct" in this email? he doesn't.

What the hell?
Are you under the influence of something?

There is no Tim Scrips.

There is a Scripps Research Institute and Tim Barnett is there. And, the fact that you don't know about the Scripps Research Institute tells me all I need to know about the veracity of much of anything you post.

Great. Don't address the actual issue, instead, let's talk about my brain farts, I would expect nothing more from you

Thanks for the "debate".

 

[Si modo]

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

You want facts....well, let them bitch slap you in the face.

Hell, you don't believe the rest of these poster, so the only thing I can bring is the evidence you requested...anything more that I say, you won't believe.

Wow, a big oil funded global warming skeptic is making accusations of fraud, how surprising.

if anything, the presence of a known skeptic on the IPCC is indicative of an intent to include a cross section of all scientists who study the climate, regardless of their view

So, in your belief, research scientists DO sellout their integrity based on who funds them?

Interesting.

 

[Meister]

You wanted emails....you got them, sorry if it burst your friggin' bubble, dr., or is that mr. dr.?