Gore barely passed "Natural Sciences" in undergrad...(insert el oh el here)

[IanC]

if scientists come up with an inert substance that can seed clouds, of the type and at the altitudes needed to reduce the energy imbalance, and it costs a million times less than your socialism solution, would you opt for it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

So, do they even bother to explain that naturally occuring cycles have been going on since the beginning?

Of course they don't....It would mean losing grants.

OK, fellow. Show those natural cycles. And a great deal of the research in the Arctic recently was not done by the government, but funded by Gary Comer.

You yap a lot, can you back it up with real scientific evidence?

 

[Old Rocks]

if scientists come up with an inert substance that can seed clouds, of the type and at the altitudes needed to reduce the energy imbalance, and it costs a million times less than your socialism solution, would you opt for it?

Hmmm........ Perhaps if I look at this tomorrow, it will somehow make sense

 

[daveman]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.

LOLOLOLOL.......rightwingnuts.....it's like Pavlov's dogs......conditioned to drool at the sound of 'socialism'...

Of course I haven't seen any of us climate scinece realists mentioning socialism as the "only" solution to the crisis or even mentioning it at all. You seem to be the one bringing it up. It's your conspiracy theory, I guess.

You haven't seen it? Well, you climate science "realists" have a tendency to see only what you want to see.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. — Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010​

And who is Edenhofer? He's "a German economist who deals with climate change policy and environmental and energy policy and energy economics. He is currently professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as well as Fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany."

Now that the truth is revealed, the only question now is will you choose to continue wallowing in your fantasy.

I bet you will.

One quick question though, daveboy. Purely hypothetical. Just for a moment, try to imagine that you turn out to be wrong about all this and the warming and climate changes get progressively worse and more disastrous and do indeed, undeniably, threaten to kill most or maybe even all human life on Earth. OK, just imagine that it has gotten so bad that even you have become convinced by the undisputable evidence in front of your face. OK, just imagine that. And now let's say that it also turned out to be obvious, even to you, that the only possible way to prevent that outcome would be to have a world government capable of dealing with a crisis that threatens the whole world and that government would of necessity have to be basically what you would probably call "socialist" since they would have to be working to save the humans and the biosphere rather than corporate profits. OK, the question. Would you personally prefer to accept and live with 'socialism', knowing it was really the only way to prevent utter catastrophe or would you choose to die a proud, defiant capitalist knowing that your children and grandchildren along with the rest of humanity were also going to die within a century because of your choices?

I'd really be interested in hearing what you think and what you would choose under those particular hypothetical circumstances.

And what would that prove, exactly? Your hypothetical is just that, and will remain just that.

In the 50's and 60's, America adopted a cold war nuclear defense strategy called MAD (seriously) which stood for Mutual Assured Destruction. It meant that we kept building more and more nuclear weapons so that we would have had enough hardened, mobile or submarine launched nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union even if they should launch a first strike nuclear attack. The detonation of that many nuclear weapons in such a war would have thrown so much crap high into the atmosphere that dust and particulates would have shrouded the Earth for literally years and caused something that scientists studying the matter would come to call "nuclear winter", and in the process, would kill everybody on the planet. The slogan in America at the time was "Better Dead Than Red". The people who said it seemed to genuinely believe that it would be preferable to die and take the whole world with them, than to live under a different economic system. At that time the boogieman word that the rightwingers had been conditioned to freak out at was "communism". These days it is "terrorist" first and then "socialism". Will the new rightwingnut slogan be "Better To Fry Than Have To Share My Stuff"?

Please note that I am not advocating socialism here or in any way saying that socialism is the only solution to the climate change crisis. This was a hypothetical question about how far some people would take their political ideologies if the real world started to seriously intrude.

Careful -- the real world is starting to intrude into your ideology.

I've just shown you the goal of the AGW cult is, indeed, world socialism. No hypothetical.

What is your reaction?

 

[daveman]

if scientists come up with an inert substance that can seed clouds, of the type and at the altitudes needed to reduce the energy imbalance, and it costs a million times less than your socialism solution, would you opt for it?

Hmmm........ Perhaps if I look at this tomorrow, it will somehow make sense

You know why it doesn't make sense to you?

Because you can't fathom any solution that isn't socialism.

 

[Flopper]

A picture is worth a thousand words

 

[RollingThunder]

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.

LOLOLOLOL.......rightwingnuts.....it's like Pavlov's dogs......conditioned to drool at the sound of 'socialism'...

Of course I haven't seen any of us climate scinece realists mentioning socialism as the "only" solution to the crisis or even mentioning it at all. You seem to be the one bringing it up. It's your conspiracy theory, I guess.

You haven't seen it? Well, you climate science "realists" have a tendency to see only what you want to see.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. — Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010​

And who is Edenhofer? He's "a German economist who deals with climate change policy and environmental and energy policy and energy economics. He is currently professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as well as Fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany."

Now that the truth is revealed, the only question now is.....

....are you kidding??? That's your "proof" that "it's all about socialism"??? LOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO....seems more like the "truth" that is "revealed" is that you're even more of a complete idiot than I thought.

One quick question though, daveboy. Purely hypothetical. Just for a moment, try to imagine that you turn out to be wrong about all this and the warming and climate changes get progressively worse and more disastrous and do indeed, undeniably, threaten to kill most or maybe even all human life on Earth. OK, just imagine that it has gotten so bad that even you have become convinced by the undisputable evidence in front of your face. OK, just imagine that. And now let's say that it also turned out to be obvious, even to you, that the only possible way to prevent that outcome would be to have a world government capable of dealing with a crisis that threatens the whole world and that government would of necessity have to be basically what you would probably call "socialist" since they would have to be working to save the humans and the biosphere rather than corporate profits. OK, the question. Would you personally prefer to accept and live with 'socialism', knowing it was really the only way to prevent utter catastrophe or would you choose to die a proud, defiant capitalist knowing that your children and grandchildren along with the rest of humanity were also going to die within a century because of your choices?

I'd really be interested in hearing what you think and what you would choose under those particular hypothetical circumstances.

And what would that prove, exactly? Your hypothetical is just that, and will remain just that.

So you don't even have the intellectual honesty (or capacity) to answer the question. Why am I not surprised?

In the 50's and 60's, America adopted a cold war nuclear defense strategy called MAD (seriously) which stood for Mutual Assured Destruction. It meant that we kept building more and more nuclear weapons so that we would have had enough hardened, mobile or submarine launched nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union even if they should launch a first strike nuclear attack. The detonation of that many nuclear weapons in such a war would have thrown so much crap high into the atmosphere that dust and particulates would have shrouded the Earth for literally years and caused something that scientists studying the matter would come to call "nuclear winter", and in the process, would kill everybody on the planet. The slogan in America at the time was "Better Dead Than Red". The people who said it seemed to genuinely believe that it would be preferable to die and take the whole world with them, than to live under a different economic system. At that time the boogieman word that the rightwingers had been conditioned to freak out at was "communism". These days it is "terrorist" first and then "socialism". Will the new rightwingnut slogan be "Better To Fry Than Have To Share My Stuff"?

Please note that I am not advocating socialism here or in any way saying that socialism is the only solution to the climate change crisis. This was a hypothetical question about how far some people would take their political ideologies if the real world started to seriously intrude.

 

[Trakar]

Oh, and the peer-review process needs to be de-bastardized. The AGW climatologists have strangled it out to silence dissent. That in itself is bad science.

That sounds like a "sour grapes" conspiracy proposition that I see no compelling evidence of in climate science or any other major scientific field. If you know of objective and compelling evidence that supports this assertion please present it.

Before I answer your concerns, we need to establish what you consider "compelling".

Because in my experience , most AGW supporters define "compelling" only as "anything that supports AGW". Anything else is not compelling.

When I speak of "compelling evidence" I am using the term in the scientific sense. In short, it is evidence that is scientifically persuasive. "Compelling evidence" generally refers to evidence that consists of a broad range of multiple lines of objective, reasonable (based on verifiable data), and logically consistent considerations and support.

 

[Trakar]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.

This seems to be your boogeyman. If you object to top down solutions, then work on viable bottom up solutions. If bottom up solutions are inappropriate or unworkable, then another way must be worked on. Regardless (and by the way, the next IPCC report is much more focussed on impacts and what needs to be done to prepare for, minimize, and mitigate AGW effects), ignoring or denying the problem because you don't like any of the offered responses, won't make the problem go away. For us or our posterity.

 

[Trakar]

...So, do they even bother to explain that naturally occuring cycles have been going on since the beginning?

Of course they don't....It would mean losing grants.

This demonstrates just how little actual climate science you are familiar with. Paleoclimate studies are at the root of modern climate science and understandings. James Hansen, though a planetary scientist with a primary focus on the physics of atmospheric radiation transfer, consistently and persistently examines and refers to geologic climate change episodes to help understand and explain how and why the climate is reacting as it does to the current episode of human forced climate change.

Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

 

[Trakar]

Trakar- you have been posting a lot of sensible comments lately. if you actually want to investigate why so many people consider members of the Hockey Team to be less than reputable then I would suggest you start here-

My general opinion of blogs, is that (for the most part) they are a half step above most messageboards, with regards to verifable and reliable content, but a half dozen steps below even the trashiest tabloid Weekly World News/National Enquirer fishwrap. In general, if its not the result of demonstrably, non-partisan, non-ideologically driven independent, public or official inquiries and analyses, it isn't a part of my considerations.

That said, I ventured to Fitz's fringe advocacy sites to examine their data and findings, so I see no reason not to venture to your blog offering.

- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamal implosion

Seriously? a long "well-poisoning" distorted and slanted pleading followed by laughably inappropriate substitution and massaging of data to produce a predetermined result. I must say it is bold of McIntyre to so cavalierly describe his distortions and actions, but then this is the type of disregard for the application of proper scientific methodology and professional misbehavior that led to him completely discrediting himself within the fields of Geology and Climatology, but then without any academic degree at all, and no independent standing or credible professional research record in these fields in the first place, I guess he never really had a standing to discredit in the first place. A good example of why blogs are not good places to try and learn about much of anything except human social and psychological natures.

Are you aware of any non-blog, non-partisan, objective and verifiable supporting evidences regarding the various pseudoscience/political conspiracy theories being pushed as the "true motivators" of AGW climate change theories?

 

[Trakar]

if scientists come up with an inert substance that can seed clouds, of the type and at the altitudes needed to reduce the energy imbalance, and it costs a million times less than your socialism solution, would you opt for it?

I don't see how this would remove anthropogenically generated CO2 from the atmosphere, and without that, clouds that increase the planet's albedo are an expensive and ongoing project that at best forestalls one symptom of increased atmospheric. This said, show me a solution that cheaply and efficiently removes the last couple hundred years of human CO2 emissions from the air and drops our technological GHG emission levels to zero, and even if it involves sweeping Conservatives into a permanent political majority, I would support it and advocate for it, I don't really perceive much of a difference between Republican and Democratic politicians to begin with, they pretty much all seem to be lying panderers with a penchant for hypocrisy and duplicity.

 

[daveman]

LOLOLOLOL.......rightwingnuts.....it's like Pavlov's dogs......conditioned to drool at the sound of 'socialism'...

Of course I haven't seen any of us climate scinece realists mentioning socialism as the "only" solution to the crisis or even mentioning it at all. You seem to be the one bringing it up. It's your conspiracy theory, I guess.

You haven't seen it? Well, you climate science "realists" have a tendency to see only what you want to see.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. — Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010​

And who is Edenhofer? He's "a German economist who deals with climate change policy and environmental and energy policy and energy economics. He is currently professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as well as Fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany."

Now that the truth is revealed, the only question now is.....

....are you kidding??? That's your "proof" that "it's all about socialism"??? LOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO....seems more like the "truth" that is "revealed" is that you're even more of a complete idiot than I thought.

That's your refutation? "Nuh-UH!!"? Really?

Typical.

And what would that prove, exactly? Your hypothetical is just that, and will remain just that.

So you don't even have the intellectual honesty (or capacity) to answer the question. Why am I not surprised?

In the 50's and 60's, America adopted a cold war nuclear defense strategy called MAD (seriously) which stood for Mutual Assured Destruction. It meant that we kept building more and more nuclear weapons so that we would have had enough hardened, mobile or submarine launched nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union even if they should launch a first strike nuclear attack. The detonation of that many nuclear weapons in such a war would have thrown so much crap high into the atmosphere that dust and particulates would have shrouded the Earth for literally years and caused something that scientists studying the matter would come to call "nuclear winter", and in the process, would kill everybody on the planet. The slogan in America at the time was "Better Dead Than Red". The people who said it seemed to genuinely believe that it would be preferable to die and take the whole world with them, than to live under a different economic system. At that time the boogieman word that the rightwingers had been conditioned to freak out at was "communism". These days it is "terrorist" first and then "socialism". Will the new rightwingnut slogan be "Better To Fry Than Have To Share My Stuff"?

Please note that I am not advocating socialism here or in any way saying that socialism is the only solution to the climate change crisis. This was a hypothetical question about how far some people would take their political ideologies if the real world started to seriously intrude.

If I have a fault, it's lack of patience with idiots. In case you didn't notice, the United States' policy towards Communism paid off: The Soviet Union collapsed and China is venturing into capitalism.

Sorry for that bit of real world intrusion there. I know it scares you.

 

[daveman]

Oh, and the peer-review process needs to be de-bastardized. The AGW climatologists have strangled it out to silence dissent. That in itself is bad science.

That sounds like a "sour grapes" conspiracy proposition that I see no compelling evidence of in climate science or any other major scientific field. If you know of objective and compelling evidence that supports this assertion please present it.

Before I answer your concerns, we need to establish what you consider "compelling".

Because in my experience , most AGW supporters define "compelling" only as "anything that supports AGW". Anything else is not compelling.

When I speak of "compelling evidence" I am using the term in the scientific sense. In short, it is evidence that is scientifically persuasive. "Compelling evidence" generally refers to evidence that consists of a broad range of multiple lines of objective, reasonable (based on verifiable data), and logically consistent considerations and support.

Yet you still support AGW.

How do you explain the contradiction?

 

[daveman]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.

This seems to be your boogeyman. If you object to top down solutions, then work on viable bottom up solutions. If bottom up solutions are inappropriate or unworkable, then another way must be worked on. Regardless (and by the way, the next IPCC report is much more focussed on impacts and what needs to be done to prepare for, minimize, and mitigate AGW effects), ignoring or denying the problem because you don't like any of the offered responses, won't make the problem go away. For us or our posterity.

Sorry. When the solution involves greater and greater government control over individual lives, rational people might conclude that that's the goal, and AGW fear-mongering is the vehicle.

 

[IanC]

Trakar- you have been posting a lot of sensible comments lately. if you actually want to investigate why so many people consider members of the Hockey Team to be less than reputable then I would suggest you start here-

My general opinion of blogs, is that (for the most part) they are a half step above most messageboards, with regards to verifable and reliable content, but a half dozen steps below even the trashiest tabloid Weekly World News/National Enquirer fishwrap. In general, if its not the result of demonstrably, non-partisan, non-ideologically driven independent, public or official inquiries and analyses, it isn't a part of my considerations.

That said, I ventured to Fitz's fringe advocacy sites to examine their data and findings, so I see no reason not to venture to your blog offering.

- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamal implosion

Seriously? a long "well-poisoning" distorted and slanted pleading followed by laughably inappropriate substitution and massaging of data to produce a predetermined result. I must say it is bold of McIntyre to so cavalierly describe his distortions and actions, but then this is the type of disregard for the application of proper scientific methodology and professional misbehavior that led to him completely discrediting himself within the fields of Geology and Climatology, but then without any academic degree at all, and no independent standing or credible professional research record in these fields in the first place, I guess he never really had a standing to discredit in the first place. A good example of why blogs are not good places to try and learn about much of anything except human social and psychological natures.

Are you aware of any non-blog, non-partisan, objective and verifiable supporting evidences regarding the various pseudoscience/political conspiracy theories being pushed as the "true motivators" of AGW climate change theories?

in general I agree that blogs are slanted in the direction of the authors's beliefs but that goes in both directions. Climate Audit and Real Climate are two of the heavyweight climate science blogs and they were both initiated to publically discuss the Hockeystick controversy. I would recommend everyone interested in climate science to read both of them.

the problem is that you want non-blog, non-partisan evidence. that rules out blogs and to a large extent climate journals which are under partisan control by 'old boy's club pal review'.

you say McIntyre has discredited himself but while I have heard many ad homs directed his way I have never seen him shown to be wrong, given the caveat that he has to work with data and evidence that he prises out of unwilling hands.

here is an example of McIntyre being slagged in public, in a mainstream climate journal by T Crowley (without giving McI to read and respond first)-
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/news/crowley.2005.EOS.pdf

here is McIntyre's response that was held up for months by EOS until they finally rejected it---for no longer being timely-
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/07/eos.2005.submission.pdf

to his partial credit, Crowley made this halfhearted apology years after the fact-

With respect to Steve’s comment on my Eos article, I would like to make the following statement:

when I wrote that article, and later gave an interview on BBC, I was genuinely under the BELIEF that what I said was true (I had deleted the original emails long ago, so could not verify my belief).

However, a few months ago I had an idea where I might be able to access at least some of those mails. I was shocked when the mails did not reveal what I had totally come to believe Steve had written.

This realization called to mind another, entirely different, situation where I was also convinced about something that I thought I had read. That too later turned out to be unverifiable — I still can’t believe that either, but the evidence (not as strong) seems to suggest so.

The only way I can understand this is that my memory is not NEARLY as good on specifics as I thought it was – it can in fact play gross tricks on a person (I suppose that is why police are always wary of visual descriptions, etc).

Whatever, I know I didn’t intentionally lie, but I also now know that what I said was not true.

I had been meaning to apologize to Steve for that matter but, like many things, I forget about this and many other resolutions when I actually sit down at a computer (I in no way spend all day at it).

Whatever, for the record I now apologize to Stephen for that matter and request him to post it on his climateaudit site. I know some people will not believe my (proposed) explanation, but that’s life – I
for one know I did not lie (intentionally tell a falsehood) because I try quite hard to say what I think is the truth, by all means to not lie, and teach my children likewise.

With regards, and final sign-off on both these matters, I wish you all the best for the new year, Tom Crowley

I bring these things up to point out to you that everything is not how you imagine it in climateland. McIntyre does a great job of referencing all of his articles at Climate Audit, and unlike Real Climate, allows unfriendly commenters to post their opinions (sometimes even whole articles).

without blogs how would we be able to explore topics like the Climategate Whitewashes? the principals gave smooth answers that sound good until they are researched. where would that be done if not on a blog? the Parliamentary inquiries asked many difficult questions only to get more smooth answers. again the blogs peeled back another layer of the onion. how do you get at the truth without involving critics who have the time to investigate the answers? Phil Jones wasnt asked about sending the email to delete AR4 correspondence (nor did he prove that he still had it), Mann claimed innocence because he only 'forwarded' the email, Wahl admitted he deleted the correspondence but no one seems to care. interesting times ahead with Mann's employer being forced to produce the emails. did anyone notice that it took less than a month for Wegman's correspondence to be handed over in the so-called plagarism case yet it has been years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to pry open Mann's records? if it actually happens that is.

 

[Trakar]

in general I agree that blogs are slanted in the direction of the authors's beliefs but that goes in both directions. Climate Audit and Real Climate are two of the heavyweight climate science blogs and they were both initiated to publically discuss the Hockeystick controversy. I would recommend everyone interested in climate science to read both of them.

I would recommend the opposite, read neither of them, at least until after they have a firm grip and understanding of the science, which, IMO, requires at the least a firm grounding in math (at the least intermediate algebra), chemistry and physics (Many HS graduates meet these base requirements), beyond this, there is some backgound reading involving the actual science of climate - I'd personally recommend something like "Climate Studies: Introduction to Climate Science" by the American Meteorological Society (AMS - you can preview the first chapter at the AMS site - http://www.ametsoc.org/amsedu/online/climateinfo/textbook.html ), or "Principles of Planetary Climate" by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert (the draft copy was up online for a long time, but it has now been pulled as the book is in publication - the online resource site for the book is up at Principles of Planetary Climate Home - most of Pierrehumbert's other materials and papers are very easy to understand excellent sources of integrative understandings of the various aspects of Climate and Climate change.) which would help to tie these basic understandings into a foundation of climate science understanding. After individuals have this basis of understanding, then they are prepared to leap into the blogosphere, if they so desire, and differentiate between the scientifically supported and accurate and the pseudoscientific nonsense that runs rampant (to a degree, irrespective of political slant) on this issue.

the problem is that you want non-blog, non-partisan evidence. that rules out blogs and to a large extent climate journals which are under partisan control by 'old boy's club pal review'.

This seems to be a propostion of a conspiracy. Do you have any verifiable, objective evidence to support these assertions?

you say McIntyre has discredited himself but while I have heard many ad homs directed his way I have never seen him shown to be wrong, given the caveat that he has to work with data and evidence that he prises out of unwilling hands.

According to whom?

In addition to the quote mining and disingenuous altering of graphs and data, mr McIntyre also seems to be stuck in the mental double-punch of a conspratorial persecution complex.

without blogs how would we be able to explore topics like the Climategate Whitewashes?

The same way we explore 9/11 Truth, Alien abductions, Bigfoot and the illuminati?

I mean, if that's your schtick and you enjoy conspiramongering as a hobby, blogs are a perfectly acceptable tool for such. But if you are trying to learn and discuss real science, it ain't the right tool for the job, and this goes as much for RealClimate and the other scienceblogs as it does for any of the less science oriented denialist sites.

 

[IanC]

OK. Im sorry that I misconstrued a few of your more reasonable posts as a movement on your part to look at both sides with an eye to see whether the evidence fits the rhetoric. obviously you are still stuck on obedience to authority.

btw I dont think the Hockey Team at Real Climate would appreciate your crack about them understanding high school science, lol. funny how you dismiss their blog but are quite willing to unquestionally have faith in their papers which they pal review amongst themselves.

another point. I consider myself a reasonably clever person but when I read a science paper I dont have the background to understand if the methodologies are appropriate or not, let alone pick out the minor mistakes. but I do like hearing the various sides defend their positions and you cant do that without visiting the blogs of the major players. if you prefer to only hear one side that is your perogitive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, then, read reviews of the methodologies and their limitations. I find it strange that so many have time to read the wingnut sites, and no time to read the sites that link to real scientists.

There are a tremendous amount of articles concerning real time data on what is happening right now in the Arctic. There are also a great many articles on what similiar changes have meant in the past. I reccomend

Amazon.com: The Fate of Greenland: Lessons from Abrupt Climate Change: Explore similar items

 

[Trakar]

OK. Im sorry that I misconstrued a few of your more reasonable posts as a movement on your part to look at both sides with an eye to see whether the evidence fits the rhetoric. obviously you are still stuck on obedience to authority.

Reasonable is the process of using a rational argument to explore or persuade others.
Rational is defined as: having its source in fact and evidence or being guided by the intellect (as distinguished from subjective experiences or emotion). I always strive to be both reasonable and rational, it is a long time habit, though I am human and prone to occassional lapses into emotional or irrational responses.

Rejecting issues like the pleadings of and twistings of McIntyre comes from having been exposed to his shennanigans and duplicity previously. I am more than open to the consideration of actual issues of science that he occassionally presents, provided it is presented in a reputable and accountable source. In a blog where he is free to spin and interweave his personal narrative and subjective considerations in amongst the data, speculations and assertions,...not so much so.

btw I dont think the Hockey Team at Real Climate would appreciate your crack about them understanding high school science, lol. funny how you dismiss their blog but are quite willing to unquestionally have faith in their papers which they pal review amongst themselves.

I really have little concern about what any RealClimate blogger feels about any comment that appears on a messageboard on hole-in-the-wall political discussion forum, and if they do they can come talk to me about it and I'll make sure that I speak real slowly so they can understand my concerns about blog-science in crystal clarity. For the most part, however, from some casual discussions with a few climate researchers I know who are active members at RealClimate, I seriously doubt that any would strongly object to any of the statements I've made regarding blogs.

another point. I consider myself a reasonably clever person but when I read a science paper I dont have the background to understand if the methodologies are appropriate or not, let alone pick out the minor mistakes. but I do like hearing the various sides defend their positions and you cant do that without visiting the blogs of the major players. if you prefer to only hear one side that is your perogitive.

Actually you can, if you follow the complete peer-review process, unfortunately, if you really don't understand the science and the field specific and appropriate standards, you really aren't going to get much out of the professional review exchanges either. The point being, if you have concerns that processes and methods are improper or unusual then its time to do some background reading and research yourself. If you rely soley or even predominantly upon the word of someone else as to the significance of an issue you don't understand is proper or improper, then you still don't know anything except what the other person is telling you, and you have no means of verifying what they are telling you.

Start with the core science and math issues and then build into how they are integrated into climate science understandings. If you suspect something amiss or peculiar go through the texts and references, and if you are still left with questions or concerns, go to the researchers themselves. My experience has been that most researchers will respond helpfully to polite and direct requests for explanations. But keep your questions tightly focussed direct, and don't expect them to personally explain all of the background material required to explain complex issues. Ask good questions which indicate that you are seriously involved in researching and attempting to find the answers on your own, and every researcher I know will bend over backwards to try and help you acquire that understanding that you seek.