Climategate 2.0

[palehorse]

"Open debate?" What are the criteria for which views should be entertained during an "open debate?"

During a scientific discussion on AIDS, should the views of those who insist that AIDS was created by the U.S. government during biological warfare research be given significant time on the podium? During discussions on the search for extraterrestrial life, should the floor be opened up to those who want to talk about crop circles and alien abductions and UFOs? During symposia on anthropology, should time be set aside for those who cite the bible as proving that human history cannot possibly date before 3000 BC?

Every example you just listed is fanatical and/or absurd.

I'm pretty sure that legitimate scientists claiming that the current warming rate is natural and unavoidable is neither fanatical or absurd.

Hosting discussions to "debate" ten different ways to arrive at the same conclusion seems rather pointless, does it not?

During a prime-time presidential debate, should the candidates from every political party be given a podium and equal air time as the Democratic and Republican parties?

Actually, yes, we should (after reasonable qualification of each candidate, of course).

 

[SparkyJJO]

"Open debate?" What are the criteria for which views should be entertained during an "open debate?"

During a scientific discussion on AIDS, should the views of those who insist that AIDS was created by the U.S. government during biological warfare research be given significant time on the podium? During discussions on the search for extraterrestrial life, should the floor be opened up to those who want to talk about crop circles and alien abductions and UFOs? During symposia on anthropology, should time be set aside for those who cite the bible as proving that human history cannot possibly date before 3000 BC? During a prime-time presidential debate, should the candidates from every political party be given a podium and equal air time as the Democratic and Republican parties?

The fact that there are "opposing views" does not automatically mean that those views should be treated as having equal stature with consensus or strongly-supported minority views. And despite your misinformed, willfully ignorant posts, the scientific argument against ACC is essentially a fringe view. To give such views significant air time would amount to a dereliction of journalistic duty to the truth, in the same way that giving significant air time to Holocaust deniers during an on-air discussion of Nazism would be.

But you're too stupid or too dishonest - or both - to understand the principle here, so keep on trolling.

Straw man and character assassination - two strikes, both get you nowhere in a reasonable discussion or argument. Fail.

Care to try again without resorting to such tactics?

 

[shira]

Straw man and character assassination - two strikes, both get you nowhere in a reasonable discussion or argument. Fail.

Care to try again without resorting to such tactics?

Circular reasoning (you need to DEMONSTRATE that the anti-ACC position is stronger than what you CLAIM are straw men) .

Mis-application of a logical principle (it would be an ad-hominem attack if I claimed that his position was false BECAUSE he's misinformed and/or dishonest; I've merely pointed out that he's incapable of understanding the principle I've cited because he's misinformed and/or dishonest).

Care to try again without making false arguments?

 

[Rainsford]

"Open debate?" What are the criteria for which views should be entertained during an "open debate?"

During a scientific discussion on AIDS, should the views of those who insist that AIDS was created by the U.S. government during biological warfare research be given significant time on the podium? During discussions on the search for extraterrestrial life, should the floor be opened up to those who want to talk about crop circles and alien abductions and UFOs? During symposia on anthropology, should time be set aside for those who cite the bible as proving that human history cannot possibly date before 3000 BC? During a prime-time presidential debate, should the candidates from every political party be given a podium and equal air time as the Democratic and Republican parties?

The fact that there are "opposing views" does not automatically mean that those views should be treated as having equal stature with consensus or strongly-supported minority views. And despite your misinformed, willfully ignorant posts, the scientific argument against ACC is essentially a fringe view. To give such views significant air time would amount to a dereliction of journalistic duty to the truth, in the same way that giving significant air time to Holocaust deniers during an on-air discussion of Nazism would be.

But you're too stupid or too dishonest - or both - to understand the principle here, so keep on trolling.

To paraphrase an excellent Cracked.com article...

If the issue is a matter of opinion, then absolutely everyone should be given a voice in the name of hearing all viewpoints. But if you expect to weigh in on science, then you need to bring data, gathered by people who know what the fuck they're talking about.

That's really the heart of all these crusades against science, whatever the topic might be. Nobody likes being told that they don't know what they are talking about and maybe they should listen to the people who do. Despite the fact that every person smart enough to be an expert in something would be pissed if random idiots started saying they knew better, people somehow think that rule doesn't apply when THEY'RE the random idiots.

"Climategate 2.0", just like 1.0, is long on politically motivated ranting and people making hard and fast claims that anthropogenic global warming is a sham with no evidence. You know what it's missing? Any scientific supporting evidence.

 

[Rainsford]

Straw man and character assassination - two strikes, both get you nowhere in a reasonable discussion or argument. Fail.

Care to try again without resorting to such tactics?

Your scolding aside, isn't it also a requirement for a reasonable discussion that everyone come to the table with an open mind and honest intentions? Injecting politically motivated, un-scientific noise into what should be a scientific matter (no matter which side is doing it) isn't reasonable at all.

 

[shira]

Every example you just listed is fanatical and/or absurd.

I'm pretty sure that legitimate scientists claiming that the current warming rate is natural and unavoidable is neither fanatical or absurd.

If you can find a strong minority OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS making this claim, you'd have a valid point. But MY point is that such a strong minority view does NOT exist.

ACC-deniers don't argue science with science. They argue that opposing views are routinely suppressed and that there's a vast conspiracy to produce pro-ACC papers because there are vast sums of money available to scientists who follow the party line. In other words, they cannot deny that the overwhelming bulk of published research supports ACC, so the try to discredit this strong consensus by making baseless claims, and also by cherry-picking and mis-representing the occasional paper that seems to undermine ACC.

Hosting discussions to "debate" ten different ways to arrive at the same conclusion seems rather pointless, does it not?

There's essentially no disagreement among evolutionary biologists about the basic truth of evolution by various mechanisms, but that doesn't mean that they agree on all of the details or even on some of the mechanisms. So there's plenty of room for disagreement and discussion without throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Similarly, there's plenty of disagreement among climatologists about the details and some of the mechanisms of ACC, even if almost all of them agree on the basic reality of ACC.

Actually, yes, we should (after reasonable qualification of each candidate, of course).

How slyly you've put "reasonable qualification" into this sentence. Well, when the anti-ACC argument can demonstrate "reasonable qualifications," by which I mean a critical mass of sound, peer-reviewed research that calls into question whether ACC is valid, then the anti-ACC argument should be given air time. Until then, the anti-ACC position is the intellectual equivalent of alien abductions and intelligent design.

 

[monovillage]

Your scolding aside, isn't it also a requirement for a reasonable discussion that everyone come to the table with an open mind and honest intentions? Injecting politically motivated, un-scientific noise into what should be a scientific matter (no matter which side is doing it) isn't reasonable at all.

""Climategate 2.0", just like 1.0, is long on politically motivated ranting and people making hard and fast claims that anthropogenic global warming is a sham with no evidence. You know what it's missing? Any scientific supporting evidence. "


What was that you said about in a reasonable discussion everyone come to the table with an open mind and honest intentions? I've posted earlier that some anthropogenic contribution to climate change is pretty much accepted by everyone. That doesn't mean that climategate 1.0 and now climategate 2.0 doesn't show some flat out illegal activity. (Jones admitting to deleting e-mails), (Jones requesting Wahl to delete e-mails, which Wahl did) or are you going to deny it ?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/exclusive-climatologist-says-he-.html

 

[Rainsford]

""Climategate 2.0", just like 1.0, is long on politically motivated ranting and people making hard and fast claims that anthropogenic global warming is a sham with no evidence. You know what it's missing? Any scientific supporting evidence. "


What was that you said about in a reasonable discussion everyone come to the table with an open mind and honest intentions? I've posted earlier that some anthropogenic contribution to climate change is pretty much accepted by everyone. That doesn't mean that climategate 1.0 and now climategate 2.0 doesn't show some flat out illegal activity. (Jones admitting to deleting e-mails), (Jones requesting Wahl to delete e-mails, which Wahl did) or are you going to deny it ?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/03/exclusive-climatologist-says-he-.html

I'm not going to deny that, absent other context, some of the emails sound bad. On the other hand, the "Climategate 1.0" emails were thoroughly investigated and those involved were cleared of actual wrongdoing. I can't say for sure that this round of emails will turn out the same way, but it seems unlikely that the hackers didn't release their "best" stuff in the first round.

That said, my real point was that the whole Climategate debate has absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming as a scientific issue. Even if people can prove that the climate scientists in these emails did something wrong, that doesn't disprove a single study about climate change all by itself. If people want to disprove the science that says people are contributing to global warming, they need to bring some actual science to the table. This political debate is interesting, but completely irrelevant to the actual scientific question.

 

[NeoV]

which is why, very early in this 'discussion', I brought up the BEST results - which pretty much validated every temperature model that every came out of the group associated with climate-gate 1 and 2.

their temperature tracking is correct - this bs is all obscuring that basic fact.

it's interesting that the denier crowd is now quite willing to accept the fact that's it's warming - as recently as 3-4 months ago, we were still getting the 'it hasn't warmed in 15 years' bs - now they agree it's warming, but little-old man has nothing to do with it.

I suppose that whole discussion about CFC's impacting the ozone layer - that was all another hoax as well - you know, by the 'non-cfc' manufacturing crowd?

Ask yourself this - if you were a climate scientist and you wanted to get some major money to fund your studies - and, to make the deniers happy - you were willing to forgo actual science to be part of hoax, or pre-determined view - do you think you'd be more likely to get that funding from one of the big energy companies - say, Exxon - or to get that funding from some green energy tech company?

The science debate here is nothing short of laughable.

The 'money' debate here is nothing short of laughable.

The only thing that should be debated at this point is what/how/when we make some changes - and yes, the cost of those changes must be taken into consideration.

 

[davmat787]

As if this issue needs more kindling...

Full emails show inarguably the researchers fought transparency, to keep public in the dark

Source

edit: just a dailytech.com blog, but it does have email exerpts from scientists in them.

 

[monovillage]

If Wahl and Jones were and are guilty of breaking the law, how can they be cleared of wrongdoing?

And NeoV i'm still waiting for you to have any sort of discussion about anything related to science. You mention the BEST results, which I don't disagree with, but they still haven't been peer reviewed. If we all agree that some warming is happening (although for the past 10+ years it's statistically insignificant) how much of that warming is natural and what part is anthropogenic? Can you answer that NeoV? As for your changes at what cost, here's a nice article from Jo Nova about Durban.

"Did I say the ship was sinking? Canada, Europe, Brazil, USA, Russia planning exits or delays"

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/di...e-brazil-usa-russia-planning-exits-or-delays/

 

[Rainsford]

If Wahl and Jones were and are guilty of breaking the law, how can they be cleared of wrongdoing?

Well obviously they couldn't be, so can you prove that they're guilty as you suggest?

In any case, you're ignoring the fact that proving two people broke the law doesn't make the slightest bit of difference when debating the science behind the debate.

 

[Rainsford]

As if this issue needs more kindling...



Source

edit: just a dailytech.com blog, but it does have email exerpts from scientists in them.

That looks like it could be scientists trying to avoid legal harassment by "skeptics" with political agendas. Of course it's kind of open to interpretation, which is sort of the point. This Climategate stuff isn't science, it's politics.

 

[cybrsage]

This AGW stuff isn't science, it's politics.

Fixteded it for you.

 

[cybrsage]

actually he is arguing with a troll... which never leads anywhere and is totally useless.

I know it is, but I still enjoy arguing with the trolls anyway. I can laugh at their spittle covered retorts.

 

[cybrsage]

"Open debate?" What are the criteria for which views should be entertained during an "open debate?"

Well, lets see. Anyone who has the ability to think on their own would say there are two views presented in this thread. One being that mankind is causing the current global warming and the other being that the natural cycle which has existed for at least 400,000 years is causing the cycle.

But you are not like those who have the ability to think on their own, are you?

But you're too stupid or too dishonest - or both - to understand the principle here, so keep on trolling.

Yes, I know my butt looks sexy in these jeans...but you really need to congrol yourself. You are actually drolling onto your shirt. I need to be wined and dined before you try to touch my body, loverboy.

 

[Paul98]

I know it is, but I still enjoy arguing with the trolls anyway. I can laugh at their spittle covered retorts.

You argue with your self a lot I see...

 

[cybrsage]

You argue with your self a lot I see...

While I know the desire to be me is strong, please do try and control yourself. You are not me, therefor I am not arguing with myself, but rather arguing with you.

You can be a very silly man.

 

[shira]

"Open debate?" What are the criteria for which views should be entertained during an "open debate?"

Well, lets see. Anyone who has the ability to think on their own would say there are two views presented in this thread. One being that mankind is causing the current global warming and the other being that the natural cycle which has existed for at least 400,000 years is causing the cycle.

But you are not like those who have the ability to think on their own, are you?

But you're too stupid or too dishonest - or both - to understand the principle here, so keep on trolling.

Yes, I know my butt looks sexy in these jeans...but you really need to congrol yourself. You are actually drolling onto your shirt. I need to be wined and dined before you try to touch my body, loverboy.

Apparently you're so excited by the prospect of my touch that your command of the language is deserting you. Or is it that you're finding it difficult to type and stroke that raging two-incher at the same time?

 

[cybrsage]

Apparently you're so excited by the prospect of my touch that your command of the language is deserting you. Or is it that you're finding it difficult to type and stroke that raging two-incher at the same time?

Stop playing coy...you know my typing goes out the window when you are going down on me! You are right next to me and we are taking turns at the keyboard.

You are so silly sometimes.

 

[JSt0rm]

Stop playing coy...you know my typing goes out the window when you are going down on me! You are right next to me and we are taking turns at the keyboard.

You are so silly sometimes.

Its always the same thing on the forums. We get a new "name" that shows up and dumps on the p&n forum. Its always 1 new name and its never 2 new names at the same time. So whatever with this dude.

 

[Paul98]

I don't really know what to think about these emails, but it has no impact on climate science as a whole. Nothing has been shown that adds any doubt about the data or what was published. Which is why I find this to have no real impact on much other than what a couple people might have done to get rid of some emails. Now you might argue that it brings in their integrity, and if they did this what else might have they done. But that's what pier review and those investigations did check and found no wrong doing.

It may be that something wrong was done, but nothing is shown that it has any impact on climate science. Until this changes their is no good reason to think otherwise.

Seems that most agree that our climate is warming, what is causing this warming trend? Which factors are man made which are not?

 

[shira]

Stop playing coy...you know my typing goes out the window when you are going down on me! You are right next to me and we are taking turns at the keyboard.

You are so silly sometimes.

So you're saying that I wined and dined you in the 17-minute interval between your two posts? Didn't your mum tell you that you won't get laid if you let that desperation show?

 

[cybrsage]

Its always the same thing on the forums. We get a new "name" that shows up and dumps on the p&n forum. Its always 1 new name and its never 2 new names at the same time. So whatever with this dude.

I see you are still refusing to support your position. Does it ever bother you when you do that?

 

[cybrsage]

So you're saying that I wined and dined you in the 17-minute interval between your two posts? Didn't your mum tell you that you won't get laid if you let that desperation show?

You brought over some Boston Market. They make good food. You appeared sincere in your effort, so I lowered my standards for you.

I have to say, you are quite experienced...so it was worth it.