Qs for Climategate deniers

[IanC]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

Could you explain how willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail constitutes anything other than willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail?

The only willful misrepresentation of what was found in the climategate email was done by the authors of the email chain and the willing media that ate up the excuses like they were chocolate rather than crap.

 

[orogenicman]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

Could you explain how willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail constitutes anything other than willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail?

The only willful misrepresentation of what was found in the climategate email was done by the authors of the email chain and the willing media that ate up the excuses like they were chocolate rather than crap.

Right. And the fact that no charges were filed against anyone because no wrong doing was found is an insignificant turn of events, eh? The fact that the e-mails were obtained only through violation of international law as well as UK national law doesn't matter to you unethical denialists, eh? And the fact that the so-called "hide the decline" has long been addressed and shown to be the misrepresentation of the facts that it is doesn't prevent you numbskulls from repeating your insanity, does it? It is exactly as pathetic as the birther effect, isn't it? That's just sad.

 

[bripat9643]

Silly boy, I don't deal in quantum mechanics, and neither do you. I do deal in geology and earth related sciences. And the people in those disciplines state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger.

Failing to get the point only proves that you are stupid. It doesn't support your argument. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. End of discussion.

 

[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. However, when the experts disagree, using an appeal to authority as an argument is a logical fallacy. And on this issue the experts definately disagree. Actually it is probably the most contentious issue in science today.
And the "experts" on your side of the issue have proven themselves to be frauds. They've been caught cherry-picking data (confirmation bias), hiding data, and just plain making up data.

 

[orogenicman]

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. However, when the experts disagree, using an appeal to authority as an argument is a logical fallacy. And on this issue the experts definately disagree. Actually it is probably the most contentious issue in science today.
And the "experts" on your side of the issue have proven themselves to be frauds. They've been caught cherry-picking data (confirmation bias), hiding data, and just plain making up data.

But then, the experts don't disagree in this case. It is politically contentious. Scientifically, not so much. So, you were saying?

 

[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.

The rule you use to find someone to fix your car is not the same rule you use to determine whether scientific theories are correct. The fact that you believe it is shows what a blithering imbecile you are.

Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics. According to your theory of knowledge, solid state computers shouldn't work.

Not exactly a fair comparison considering the issues that gave Einstein reservations still have yet to be fully resolved.

What's not fair about it? Einstein was the preeminent expert on physics, wasn't he?

 

[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.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

According to your logic, a diesel mechanic is as knowledgeable as a brain surgeon on the topic of glial cell tumors. Smooth move, bubba.

 

[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. However, when the experts disagree, using an appeal to authority as an argument is a logical fallacy. And on this issue the experts definately disagree. Actually it is probably the most contentious issue in science today.
And the "experts" on your side of the issue have proven themselves to be frauds. They've been caught cherry-picking data (confirmation bias), hiding data, and just plain making up data.

But then, the experts don't disagree in this case. It is politically contentious. Scientifically, not so much. So, you were saying?

Your assertion is a flat out lie.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[IanC]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

Could you explain how willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail constitutes anything other than willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail?

The only willful misrepresentation of what was found in the climategate email was done by the authors of the email chain and the willing media that ate up the excuses like they were chocolate rather than crap.

Right. And the fact that no charges were filed against anyone because no wrong doing was found is an insignificant turn of events, eh? The fact that the e-mails were obtained only through violation of international law as well as UK national law doesn't matter to you unethical denialists, eh? And the fact that the so-called "hide the decline" has long been addressed and shown to be the misrepresentation of the facts that it is doesn't prevent you numbskulls from repeating your insanity, does it? It is exactly as pathetic as the birther effect, isn't it? That's just sad.

So charge the guilty parties. I am not condoning illegal action, if that was what it was.

In the same vein, why wasn't Glieck charged? He fraudulently obtained Heartland documents and publically exposed them. He admitted it. Not only that but he added a forged document as well, the only one that even hinted at wrong doing.

Can you believe Glieck was scheduled to head the ethics committee on for the AGU? He only got a wrist slap despite admitting to fraud. How does that fit into your view? An unknown whistleblower compared to a known and respected member of climate science. Neither were charged but one got away with it because he wasn't caught and the other was caught but no one seemed to think it was worthwhile to prosecute. Hmmmm.....double standards perhaps?

 

[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.

 

[orogenicman]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

Could you explain how willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail constitutes anything other than willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail?

The only willful misrepresentation of what was found in the climategate email was done by the authors of the email chain and the willing media that ate up the excuses like they were chocolate rather than crap.

Right. And the fact that no charges were filed against anyone because no wrong doing was found is an insignificant turn of events, eh? The fact that the e-mails were obtained only through violation of international law as well as UK national law doesn't matter to you unethical denialists, eh? And the fact that the so-called "hide the decline" has long been addressed and shown to be the misrepresentation of the facts that it is doesn't prevent you numbskulls from repeating your insanity, does it? It is exactly as pathetic as the birther effect, isn't it? That's just sad.

So charge the guilty parties. I am not condoning illegal action, if that was what it was.

Right. So as soon as you reveal who it was that broken into government e-mail servers in the UK, I'll be sure to see that they stand trial for their offenses. (eyes roll).

In the same vein, why wasn't Glieck charged? He fraudulently obtained Heartland documents and publically exposed them. He admitted it. Not only that but he added a forged document as well, the only one that even hinted at wrong doing.

Probably because the Heartland Institute didn't file charges against him. I guess they were to embarrassed by the truth he revealed.

 

[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.

According to your logic, a diesel mechanic is as knowledgeable as a brain surgeon on the topic of glial cell tumors. Smooth move, bubba.

Nope, that isn't my claim. However, both can be wrong on any given question about the brain.

 

[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?

 

[IanC]

Could you explain how using a "trick" to "hide" things constitutes sound science?

Could you explain how willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail constitutes anything other than willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail?

The only willful misrepresentation of what was found in the climategate email was done by the authors of the email chain and the willing media that ate up the excuses like they were chocolate rather than crap.

Right. And the fact that no charges were filed against anyone because no wrong doing was found is an insignificant turn of events, eh? The fact that the e-mails were obtained only through violation of international law as well as UK national law doesn't matter to you unethical denialists, eh? And the fact that the so-called "hide the decline" has long been addressed and shown to be the misrepresentation of the facts that it is doesn't prevent you numbskulls from repeating your insanity, does it? It is exactly as pathetic as the birther effect, isn't it? That's just sad.

So charge the guilty parties. I am not condoning illegal action, if that was what it was.

Right. So as soon as you reveal who it was that broken into government e-mail servers in the UK, I'll be sure to see that they stand trial for their offenses. (eyes roll).

In the same vein, why wasn't Glieck charged? He fraudulently obtained Heartland documents and publically exposed them. He admitted it. Not only that but he added a forged document as well, the only one that even hinted at wrong doing.

Probably because the Heartland Institute didn't file charges against him. I guess they were to embarrassed by the truth he revealed.

What 'truth' did Glieck reveal? That Heartland has sponsors that donate a few thousands at a time rather than the millions given to CAGW groups? The only inflammatory document was a fake, added to spice up an unsuccessful burglary that produced nothing of interest. Heartland didn't file charges so that innocent sponsors wouldn't be dragged through the muck. Why didn't Gleick's employer and the climate science community at large punish him for admitted fraud?

 

[Wuwei]

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."

 

[orogenicman]

Could you explain how willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail constitutes anything other than willful misrepresentation of one sentence in an illegally obtained government e-mail?

The only willful misrepresentation of what was found in the climategate email was done by the authors of the email chain and the willing media that ate up the excuses like they were chocolate rather than crap.

Right. And the fact that no charges were filed against anyone because no wrong doing was found is an insignificant turn of events, eh? The fact that the e-mails were obtained only through violation of international law as well as UK national law doesn't matter to you unethical denialists, eh? And the fact that the so-called "hide the decline" has long been addressed and shown to be the misrepresentation of the facts that it is doesn't prevent you numbskulls from repeating your insanity, does it? It is exactly as pathetic as the birther effect, isn't it? That's just sad.

So charge the guilty parties. I am not condoning illegal action, if that was what it was.

Right. So as soon as you reveal who it was that broken into government e-mail servers in the UK, I'll be sure to see that they stand trial for their offenses. (eyes roll).

In the same vein, why wasn't Glieck charged? He fraudulently obtained Heartland documents and publically exposed them. He admitted it. Not only that but he added a forged document as well, the only one that even hinted at wrong doing.

Probably because the Heartland Institute didn't file charges against him. I guess they were to embarrassed by the truth he revealed.

What 'truth' did Glieck reveal? That Heartland has sponsors that donate a few thousands at a time rather than the millions given to CAGW groups? The only inflammatory document was a fake, added to spice up an unsuccessful burglary that produced nothing of interest. Heartland didn't file charges so that innocent sponsors wouldn't be dragged through the muck. Why didn't Gleick's employer and the climate science community at large punish him for admitted fraud?

Heartland didn't file charges because they didn't want to reveal the names of their donors.

 

[IanC]

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?

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.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

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?