Qs for Climategate deniers

[bripat9643]

Sure, using an appeal to authority in an argument can be legit sometimes.

Wrong. No it can't. A claim is either right or wrong. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the person making the claim are.

Yes it is. For instance, say you find a rock of granite and you nothing about geology.

You could show the rock of granite to 10,000 geologists and they will unanimously agree that it is granite. None of them are going to argue that it is not granite. In a case like that it is perfectly acceptable to use an appeal to authority in an argument regarding what type of rock it is.

Philosophy 101 dude.

So considering a question we all know the answer to, it's valid to consider the opinion of an expert on the subject? Take a class in logic, dude.

What about questions that no one knows the answer to?

More to the point....why does climate science not clean up obvious mistakes? It's like the medical field continuing to blame peptic ulcers on stress after the bacterial connection was made. Move forward and stop trying to shoehorn contradictory evidence into the same tired and flawed hypothesis.

Why do deniers have to make up "obvious mistakes" that either don't exist, or else don't refute the science in the first place?

They aren't really "mistakes." They're lies, cons, frauds.

 

[IanC]

C'mon guys. There are other reasons you can criticize AGW. But not "climategate". You are clinging to old discredited manufactured controversy. Nothing to see here. Let's move on.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the Climategate Manufactured Controversy Union of Concerned Scientists

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

• A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
• Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
• A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
• The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

You are new here so I will cut you some slack. Those Inquiries were so incompetent that the only way to describe them is whitewash.

There are archived threads here that described them in real time. You should check them out.

One of the main climategate emails is Jones' 'delete all emails' email. Was Jones asked about it during the investigations? Yes or no? When Penn asked Mann whether he was involved in getting the emails deleted he answered no. Did Penn investigate further? No, Wahl freely admitted he did delete his AR4 correspondence after Mann sent him the email. When asked why he had never admitted this before he answered 'because no one ever asked me'.

Does this sound like a thorough investigation to you?

 

[orogenicman]

Wrong. No it can't. A claim is either right or wrong. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the person making the claim are.

Yes it is. For instance, say you find a rock of granite and you nothing about geology.

You could show the rock of granite to 10,000 geologists and they will unanimously agree that it is granite. None of them are going to argue that it is not granite. In a case like that it is perfectly acceptable to use an appeal to authority in an argument regarding what type of rock it is.

Philosophy 101 dude.

So considering a question we all know the answer to, it's valid to consider the opinion of an expert on the subject? Take a class in logic, dude.

What about questions that no one knows the answer to?

More to the point....why does climate science not clean up obvious mistakes? It's like the medical field continuing to blame peptic ulcers on stress after the bacterial connection was made. Move forward and stop trying to shoehorn contradictory evidence into the same tired and flawed hypothesis.

Why do deniers have to make up "obvious mistakes" that either don't exist, or else don't refute the science in the first place?

They aren't really "mistakes." They're lies, cons, frauds.

So you are calling Ian a liar?

 

[Muhammed]

Ah yes, appeal to authority, as in one takes one's car to the auto mechanic, not the local brain surgeon. And, if one has the least bit of common sense, one trusts what people with academic degrees representing decades of study state, over what obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weatherman state.

Sure, using an appeal to authority in an argument can be legit sometimes.

Wrong. No it can't. A claim is either right or wrong. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the person making the claim are.

Yes it is. For instance, say you find a rock of granite and you nothing about geology.

You could show the rock of granite to 10,000 geologists and they will unanimously agree that it is granite. None of them are going to argue that it is not granite. In a case like that it is perfectly acceptable to use an appeal to authority in an argument regarding what type of rock it is.

Philosophy 101 dude.

So considering a question we all know the answer to, it's valid to consider the opinion of an expert on the subject? Take a class in logic, dude.

What about questions that no one knows the answer to?

Take reading comprehension class.

 

[jc456]

When the agreement among publishing climatologists is 95%+, and evey Scientific Society states that AGW is a fact, one can logically call that a consensus on the subject.

And when all the legal authorities state that the evidence for the so called 'Climategate' was not only illegally obtained, but does not amount to a hill of beans, then it is a foregone conclusion that those still beating this dead horse are terminally stupid.

and publishing scientists may only cover 50% of the population of scientists, maybe more.

 

[orogenicman]

When the agreement among publishing climatologists is 95%+, and evey Scientific Society states that AGW is a fact, one can logically call that a consensus on the subject.

And when all the legal authorities state that the evidence for the so called 'Climategate' was not only illegally obtained, but does not amount to a hill of beans, then it is a foregone conclusion that those still beating this dead horse are terminally stupid.

and publishing scientists may only cover 50% of the population of scientists, maybe more.

But then, what, if anything, are the non-published scientists contributing to the science?

 

[Wuwei]

You are new here so I will cut you some slack. Those Inquiries were so incompetent that the only way to describe them is whitewash.

There are archived threads here that described them in real time. You should check them out.

One of the main climategate emails is Jones' 'delete all emails' email. Was Jones asked about it during the investigations? Yes or no? When Penn asked Mann whether he was involved in getting the emails deleted he answered no. Did Penn investigate further? No, Wahl freely admitted he did delete his AR4 correspondence after Mann sent him the email. When asked why he had never admitted this before he answered 'because no one ever asked me'.

Does this sound like a thorough investigation to you?

Sure there seemed to be hanky panky in what was in the emails, and the deleting of the emails. The investigative bodies rightfully reprimanded them for "culture of non-disclosure." The source I cited focused on the email issues. The six major investigations also concluded that there was no impact on the science involved. You can believe who you want to believe, but in light of the finger pointing between blogs the issue seems to be wheel-spinning of something over 5 years old.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah yes, appeal to authority, as in one takes one's car to the auto mechanic, not the local brain surgeon. And, if one has the least bit of common sense, one trusts what people with academic degrees representing decades of study state, over what obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weatherman state.

Sure, using an appeal to authority in an argument can be legit sometimes.

Wrong. No it can't. A claim is either right or wrong. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the person making the claim are.

Yes it is. For instance, say you find a rock of granite and you nothing about geology.

You could show the rock of granite to 10,000 geologists and they will unanimously agree that it is granite. None of them are going to argue that it is not granite. In a case like that it is perfectly acceptable to use an appeal to authority in an argument regarding what type of rock it is.

Philosophy 101 dude.

So considering a question we all know the answer to, it's valid to consider the opinion of an expert on the subject? Take a class in logic, dude.

What about questions that no one knows the answer to?

Take reading comprehension class.

I read and comprehended the fact that you said if we already know the answer then an appeal to authority is valid. However, you fail to understand why that argument is idiotic.

 

[bripat9643]

You are new here so I will cut you some slack. Those Inquiries were so incompetent that the only way to describe them is whitewash.

There are archived threads here that described them in real time. You should check them out.

One of the main climategate emails is Jones' 'delete all emails' email. Was Jones asked about it during the investigations? Yes or no? When Penn asked Mann whether he was involved in getting the emails deleted he answered no. Did Penn investigate further? No, Wahl freely admitted he did delete his AR4 correspondence after Mann sent him the email. When asked why he had never admitted this before he answered 'because no one ever asked me'.

Does this sound like a thorough investigation to you?

Sure there seemed to be hanky panky in what was in the emails, and the deleting of the emails. The investigative bodies rightfully reprimanded them for "culture of non-disclosure." The source I cited focused on the email issues. The six major investigations also concluded that there was no impact on the science involved. You can believe who you want to believe, but in light of the finger pointing between blogs the issue seems to be wheel-spinning of something over 5 years old.

You mean the six major white washes, don't you? Was anyone critical of the global warming hocus-pocus on any of these panels?

 

[bripat9643]

When the agreement among publishing climatologists is 95%+, and evey Scientific Society states that AGW is a fact, one can logically call that a consensus on the subject.

And when all the legal authorities state that the evidence for the so called 'Climategate' was not only illegally obtained, but does not amount to a hill of beans, then it is a foregone conclusion that those still beating this dead horse are terminally stupid.

and publishing scientists may only cover 50% of the population of scientists, maybe more.

But then, what, if anything, are the non-published scientists contributing to the science?

They are exposing a hug swindle.

 

[Muhammed]

Sure, using an appeal to authority in an argument can be legit sometimes.

Wrong. No it can't. A claim is either right or wrong. It doesn't matter what the credentials of the person making the claim are.

Yes it is. For instance, say you find a rock of granite and you nothing about geology.

You could show the rock of granite to 10,000 geologists and they will unanimously agree that it is granite. None of them are going to argue that it is not granite. In a case like that it is perfectly acceptable to use an appeal to authority in an argument regarding what type of rock it is.

Philosophy 101 dude.

So considering a question we all know the answer to, it's valid to consider the opinion of an expert on the subject? Take a class in logic, dude.

What about questions that no one knows the answer to?

Take reading comprehension class.

I read and comprehended the fact that you said if we already know the answer then an appeal to authority is valid. However, you fail to understand why that argument is idiotic.

No, that is not what I said. In other words, you are committing a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument.

 

[orogenicman]

When the agreement among publishing climatologists is 95%+, and evey Scientific Society states that AGW is a fact, one can logically call that a consensus on the subject.

And when all the legal authorities state that the evidence for the so called 'Climategate' was not only illegally obtained, but does not amount to a hill of beans, then it is a foregone conclusion that those still beating this dead horse are terminally stupid.

and publishing scientists may only cover 50% of the population of scientists, maybe more.

But then, what, if anything, are the non-published scientists contributing to the science?

They are exposing a hug swindle.

Yeah, and the Apollo landings were hoaxes. Drink the kool-aid, bubba.

 

[bripat9643]

When the agreement among publishing climatologists is 95%+, and evey Scientific Society states that AGW is a fact, one can logically call that a consensus on the subject.

And when all the legal authorities state that the evidence for the so called 'Climategate' was not only illegally obtained, but does not amount to a hill of beans, then it is a foregone conclusion that those still beating this dead horse are terminally stupid.

and publishing scientists may only cover 50% of the population of scientists, maybe more.

But then, what, if anything, are the non-published scientists contributing to the science?

They are exposing a hug swindle.

Yeah, and the Apollo landings were hoaxes. Drink the kool-aid, bubba.

I can't imagine anything more absurd than comparing the AGW swindle to the Apollo moon landings.

 

[Wuwei]

They are exposing a hug swindle.

You choose your avatar wisely - a brat shouting inanities.