Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup
Discussion
SWF wants a "nasty" e-mail.
Here's a compendium of all the "nasty" e-mails with the added bonus of insightful commentary:
http://johncostella.webs.com/
Here's a compendium of all the "nasty" e-mails with the added bonus of insightful commentary:
http://johncostella.webs.com/
Diderot said:
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
That is because you are almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
ATG said:
Diderot said:
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
That is because you are almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
deeps said:
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
LOL, so you thought you'd join in and make a fool of yourself too.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Curious as to why you don't care that man could be altering the climate and destroying the planet? Doesn't even bother you enough to have a view on? Whether it's true or whether you are being conned isn't important? Most who believe MMGW Theory is bulls
t will openly admit so, fence sitters on the other hand are usually proven to be closet true believers. Your style of discussion is to make things up and slag people off. Do you really think that is persuasive? Do you think that is going to sway anyone's opinion?
You'll notice several other contributors to this thread talked about competing evidence and theory. What else is worth discussing?
Diderot said:
ATG said:
Diderot said:
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
That is because you are almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
ATG said:
Diderot said:
ATG said:
Diderot said:
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
That is because you are almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Whatever your position on the the AGW debate, only the hard of thinking and wilfully ignorant see this an a non-issue and sit on the fence. Either the world is going to end in floods and fire and malnourished polar bear carcasses, or it's the greatest con/scandal in human history.
ATG said:
deeps said:
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
LOL, so you thought you'd join in and make a fool of yourself too.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Curious as to why you don't care that man could be altering the climate and destroying the planet? Doesn't even bother you enough to have a view on? Whether it's true or whether you are being conned isn't important? Most who believe MMGW Theory is bulls
t will openly admit so, fence sitters on the other hand are usually proven to be closet true believers. ATG said:
You assert that I don't care. Where did I say that? You assert that fence sitters are usually closet true believers. That is either tautological (self-contradictory, irrational) or you're asserting that fence sitters are liars.
You said "I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail" are you now saying that that means you care about the subject? As for fence sitters, for some time that was a standard true believer opening line around here, as if we're so gullible as to believe them, they were soon outed, so yes many but not all are liars.ATG said:
Your style of discussion is to make things up and slag people off. Do you really think that is persuasive? Do you think that is going to sway anyone's opinion?
You'll notice several other contributors to this thread talked about competing evidence and theory. What else is worth discussing?
I have made nothing up and have slagged no one off. You are the one who accused most posters on this thread of being fools, not I, you obviously don't like the taste of your own medicine.You'll notice several other contributors to this thread talked about competing evidence and theory. What else is worth discussing?
Diderot said:
only the hard of thinking and wilfully ignorant see this an a non-issue and sit on the fence.
You are confusing two completely different things. "Sitting on the fence", as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with caring about or not caring about a subject. Particularly on a topic where you neither get nor should expect to get blindingly obvious evidence, surely uncertainty to one degree or another is the only sane position? Anyone who says "it's obviously true" or "it's obviously false" has either had some blinding insight which they should be able to explain to the rest of us, or they've just jumped to a conclusion without the evidence to back it up and are deluding themselves?
ATG said:
You are confusing two completely different things. "Sitting on the fence", as you put it, has absolutely nothing to do with caring about or not caring about a subject. Particularly on a topic where you neither get nor should expect to get blindingly obvious evidence, surely uncertainty to one degree or another is the only sane position? Anyone who says "it's obviously true" or "it's obviously false" has either had some blinding insight which they should be able to explain to the rest of us, or they've just jumped to a conclusion without the evidence to back it up and are deluding themselves?
The problem is lack of trust. By their own actions the CRU have shown they cannot be trusted (refusing FOI requests for raw data - emails celebrating the death of one of their detractors - subversion of the peer review process) . As such all of their work needs to be scientifically verified (from the raw data - not just a quick reread of 11 papers) not the whitewash the OP highlighted review has been shown to be. ATG said:
deeps said:
ATG said:
You'll notice several other contributors to this thread talked about competing evidence and theory. What else is worth discussing?
But not all from the one camp, there are people interested in and knowledgeable about/study the science from both sides on here, so don't you see how insulting it was to make a pretty blanket accusation that the non-AGW believers were fools?Lost_BMW said:
ATG said:
deeps said:
ATG said:
You'll notice several other contributors to this thread talked about competing evidence and theory. What else is worth discussing?
But not all from the one camp, there are people interested in and knowledgeable about/study the science from both sides on here, so don't you see how insulting it was to make a pretty blanket accusation that the non-AGW believers were fools?Anyway ... it's pretty obvious I dodn't say anything remotely like "non-AGW believers were fools" and applauded the discussion of competing evidence and theory.
Edited by ATG on Tuesday 20th April 17:10
ATG said:
Lost_BMW said:
ATG said:
deeps said:
ATG said:
You'll notice several other contributors to this thread talked about competing evidence and theory. What else is worth discussing?
But not all from the one camp, there are people interested in and knowledgeable about/study the science from both sides on here, so don't you see how insulting it was to make a pretty blanket accusation that the non-AGW believers were fools?Anyway ... it's pretty obvious I dodn't say anything remotely like "non-AGW believers were fools" and applauded the discussion of competing evidence and theory.
Edited by ATG on Tuesday 20th April 17:10
ATG said:
<snip> ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
which is remotely like "non-AGW believers were fools" as the majority of other posters are either non-believers or simple trolls.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
It is clear that you are in the trolling camp. You have suggested that you are qualified in both physics and statistics and are ignorant of the climate change science. Anybody with your qualifications who gave a damn would have done a little bit of reseach before proclaiming their ignorance on the internet. So, I call troll.
Don
--
don4l ...can you not see the "though certainly not all" in the very bit you quoted from me? So there were two people on the thread putting forward the case for MMGW and I said most of the rest "though certainly not all" were talking crap. If you read that as me saying "everyone who doesn't believe in MMGM is a fool", well, that's your problem.
And if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded. If a little bit of research was all that was required, why do you think the UK and US governments turn to bodies like the Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences to weigh the evidence? Why would they need to do that if a little bit of research was all that was necessary to know what was going on? Why do you think there are intelligent, honest scientists on both sides of the debate? Why would anyone have ever bothered to convene the IPCC?
If pointing out the blindingly obvious makes me a troll in your eyes, oh well.
And if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded. If a little bit of research was all that was required, why do you think the UK and US governments turn to bodies like the Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences to weigh the evidence? Why would they need to do that if a little bit of research was all that was necessary to know what was going on? Why do you think there are intelligent, honest scientists on both sides of the debate? Why would anyone have ever bothered to convene the IPCC?
If pointing out the blindingly obvious makes me a troll in your eyes, oh well.
...beautJasandjules said:
ATG said:
Why would anyone have ever bothered to convene the IPCC?
Well, the clue is in the title is it not? And the conclusion is tax. Who pays the IPCC wages? And who benefits from all the tax? Qui Bono.http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/artic...
It becomes quite apparent the 'reasons' for setting up the IPCC, and why the whole organisation cannot be taken at face value....due to all the vested interests.
The IPCC was setup to 'promote' climate change......debating it was never on the cards.
ATG said:
don4l ...can you not see the "though certainly not all" in the very bit you quoted from me? So there were two people on the thread putting forward the case for MMGW and I said most of the rest "though certainly not all" were talking crap. If you read that as me saying "everyone who doesn't believe in MMGM is a fool", well, that's your problem.
And if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded. If a little bit of research was all that was required, why do you think the UK and US governments turn to bodies like the Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences to weigh the evidence? Why would they need to do that if a little bit of research was all that was necessary to know what was going on? Why do you think there are intelligent, honest scientists on both sides of the debate? Why would anyone have ever bothered to convene the IPCC?
If pointing out the blindingly obvious makes me a troll in your eyes, oh well.
You, sir, are mind-bogglingly naive. And if you think "a little bit of research" is sufficient to inform opinion on a topic like global warming, then you are deluded. If a little bit of research was all that was required, why do you think the UK and US governments turn to bodies like the Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences to weigh the evidence? Why would they need to do that if a little bit of research was all that was necessary to know what was going on? Why do you think there are intelligent, honest scientists on both sides of the debate? Why would anyone have ever bothered to convene the IPCC?
If pointing out the blindingly obvious makes me a troll in your eyes, oh well.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
The IPCC was setup to 'promote' climate change......debating it was never on the cards.
That's my take on it exactly.My first exposure was about two or three years ago after reading some earlier threads on AGW on PH. I was sort of a fence sitter at the time, although the oft repeated phrase, "unprecedented warming" rang some alarm bells. '"Unprecedented" surely, I thought, means that such warming has never occurred in the history of this planet. Seems a bold assertion, that.'.
Anyway, after reading some of the opening gambits in the early PH climate change threads I thought I should read some IPCC text. One section title jumped out at me straight away: "Summary For Policymakers".
So. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a summary in it's tome directed to policymakers
Not a concluding synposis, not a summary of findings, but a section clearly written for the purposes of guidance to interested parties.That - at the time - said to me that policymakers i.e. governments had requested the formation of the IPCC with the sole directive of proving global wombling to thus formulate governmental policies based on the science. The IPCC would clearly publish what they were pre-disposed to publish in line with their moniker and those who requested it. Notwithstanding this, one would expect such a dissertation on a subject that has global consequences to be concise and cogent in it's findings. Black and white. Yes or f
king no. Wouldn't you? You know, 'Because of X, Y will occur, and when this does Z will happen". That sort of thing.But every IPCC publication is littered with slack-jawed s
t such as "likely", or "very likely", or "quite possible". There are a number of e-mails in the climategate leak where the semantics of such phrases are discussed, to a point where the word "likely" was tortured and then agreed to mean "virtually certain"!! I'm virtually certain the AGW is a curve-ball, and that the science behind it is extremely likely to be b0llocks.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff