Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Return Of The Son Of The Bride Of Climategate Part II: The Final Conflict (in 3D !!)

Dang it, if you're going to fleece the taxpayers, it's not smart to reveal how and why you're doing it. 

It seems that the ClimateGate Boys have been naughty.....

Here's James Delingpole of London's Telegraph:

Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

I've only had time to browse through a few of these, and all I can say is Holy Shit !!!  What a bunch of phonies.  Publicists.  That's all they are.  A bunch of guys in lab coats massaging the data for the benefit of press releases.  Publicists. 


Here are a few random samples, culled from here and here and here and here.  Browse through this stuff when time permits.  I'm going to say it once more.  Holy Shit !!!!

&1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil (Jones), hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.


<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.
<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
<2459> Osborn:

Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
“David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you’ll already have.
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

Holy Shit, Holy Shit, Holy Shit.  That's all I'm gonna say.  Holy Shit !!!!!!!!!!
And here's more talk about hiding the decline.  Unbelievable. 

Yep, if you only show the peaks and not the valleys, the world looks like a very hot place. 
This is going to be a fascinating couple of weeks. 

34 comments:

Cedric Katesby said...

Here's James Delingpole of London's Telegraph...

Oh, a newspaper this time?
(yawn)

...two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails...

Nope, they are the same batch.
The hackers just sat on them for two years. Aren't you curious as to why?

...once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming...

And you know this...how exactly?
What paper was exaggerated?
When?
Don't be so vague.
Spell out the skullduggery.

This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

Why the two year wait? Seems an odd way to treat the public. Think about it.

And why are the quotes shorn of context? They are very small. All of them.

This is the same dumb stuff as before. You fell for it then and you have learned nothing in the meantime.

Can't you see you are being lead by the nose..again?

Nick Rowe said...

Cedric Katesby:

"Baaaaa. Four legs gooood. Two legs baaaaaad."

Cedric Katesby said...

That's it?
Sad.
You have nothing else.

Two years ago, Delingpole made all sorts of grandiose claims.
Not one of them came true.
Not a single blessed one.
It was all froth and nonsense.
He's a tool.

If you are not prepared to do even the bare minimum of fact-checking then you deserve to be sucked in.

...once again caught red-handed...

Caught "red-handed" doing what exactly?
Spell it out.

...exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming...

How? Why are there no details?
Why are there never any details?

Why did nobody ever lay any formal charges?
Fraud is a crime.
It's a criminal offence.
Yet nobody from anywhere called the police.

Go ahead and read whatever emails you want. The end result will be exactly the same as last time.
A big fat zero.
It's all sizzle and no steak.

I don't need no-name blogs to do my thinking for me.
I don't rely upon newspapers for my science information.
I'm better than that.

A global scientific conspiracy doesn't work.
It's physically impossible.
That's not going to change any time soon.
You are being led by the nose.

Nick Rowe said...

Baaaaa!

That's all I need to say.

That and to remind you of the global scientific conspiracy of Ptolemaic geocentrism which lasted for, oh, about 12 centuries.

You're also apparently not acquainted with Kuhn's notion of paradigm shifts in science. You cling to your theories despite the inability to explain anomalies, and you make up excuses when you have evidence before your eyes that scientists are covering up anomalous results.

It is not the job of scientists to simply dismiss anomalies, you oaf, but rather to accept them as challenges, i.e. they perform GOOD SCIENCE.

You're not "better than that." You don't do any of your own thinking. All you know about global warming you read on Wikipedia and saw in Al Gore's "the planet has a fever" movie.

Dunce!

Baaaaaa!

Cedric Katesby said...

Baaaaa!
That's all I need to say.


It's all you have. Nothing but handwaving.

That and to remind you of the global scientific conspiracy of Ptolemaic geocentrism which lasted for, oh, about 12 centuries.

What's your point?

You're also apparently not acquainted with Kuhn's notion of paradigm shifts in science.

Umm, this is connected with the emails...how?

You cling to your theories...

Nope. Nothing to do with me.
It's NASA's theories.
Say it with me slowly.
NASA.
(Plus every single scientific commmunity on the planet-no exceptions.)

...despite the inability to explain anomalies...

Anomoly hunting is what deniers do.
The moon landing deniers and the 9/11 troofters and the creationists hunt for anomolies exclusively.
(Piltdown Man, flags waving in a vacuum, melting point of steel, blah, blah, blah)
That's what conspiracy theories are made of.
That not how a genuine skeptic operates.


It is not the job of scientists to simply dismiss anomalies, you oaf, but rather to accept them as challenges, i.e. they perform GOOD SCIENCE.

You are building a strawman.
I'm sure that scientists at NASA and all the other scientific communities don't really need your advice on how to do their job.

You're not "better than that."

Yes I am and I can prove it.
Ready?
I don't use newspapers to get my science information.
You do.
Allen does.
It's a bad idea.

I don't use some no-name blog to get my science information either.
You probably do.
Allen does it all the time.
It's a bad idea.
A really, really bad idea.

All you know about global warming you read on Wikipedia and saw in Al Gore's "the planet has a fever" movie.

Clearly you are having a senior moment.
I get my science information from...(go on, guess!)...NASA.
You do not.
So nature balances itself.

Seriously, I mention NASA all the time. Love NASA. I can't believe you flubbed that one. I always refer to NASA. It's NASA this and NASA that and NASA something else.
Just can't stop talking about NASA.
And the NAS, and the Royal Society and NOAA and the Americal Chemical Society and all the rest of 'em.

Primary sources of information.
Primary sources.

But back to the emails...

The emails are from the same batch stolen two years ago.
Now boys and girls, why did the hacker sit on them for two years?
Think about it.
Two years.
Doesn't sound like classic whistle blower behaviour to me.

Did Allen know that before he made his post?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Care to come up with a good reason why?

Dr Ralph said...

Cedric - "bare minimum of fact-checking." You should know by now fact-checking is for sheep.

Baaaahh-d on you.

Nick said...

I made my points quite plainly, CK.

I fault the public education system that failed to teach you how to read and think.

Your ability to repeat acronyms of government agencies is amazing. Simply amazing.

Cedric Katesby said...

I made my points quite plainly, CK.

I'll be the best judge of that.
You seem to be singulary unable to talk about the emails.
Swallow you your bile for a moment.
Think.

I don't get my information from newspapers or blogs.
This is a fact.
I never do this.
This is because my standards are higher than that.

I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
All of them.

All you know about global warming you read on Wikipedia and saw in Al Gore's "the planet has a fever" movie.

Liar.
You admit it yourself.

Your ability to repeat acronyms of government agencies is amazing.

Wikipedia is not a government agency. Nor is some film or other.

Let me spell it out for you again since you seem to be a little slow.
NASA.
Everything that I accept about climate change, everything that that I say about climate change comes from NASA.
Not Wikipedia.
Oh no.
Not some film that I have never seen.
Nope.
NASA.
Say it with me. Ready? NASA.

They didn't lie to you about the moon landings.
They are not lying to you now about climate change.

They are not involved in some big, spooky wooky fraud or hoax that is ever present and yet strangely undefined and vague.
Embrace reality.

Getting your science information from the global scientific community is better (much better) that getting your science information from some newspaper or blog...or even wikipedia or some film or other.

I'm better that that. My standards are higher than yours. They are so much higher that you are compelled to lie about them.

Allen always gets every single piece about climate change from blogs or newspapers. Though to be fair, he sometimes gets his information from a blog which in turn gets their information from a newspaper and another newspaper and another newspaper.

Never primary sources.

I fault the public education system..

What public education system?
Think before you type.

So what about those emails?

Why the two year wait? Seems an odd way to treat the public.
If these emails were somehow important and the publc had a right to know and were truly "earth-shattering"...then why sit on them for two years?

And why are the quotes shorn of context? They are all very small. All of them. How come they don't come complete with the full context so anybody can read for themselves what any of the emails are on about?
No context-no meaning.

Nick said...

NASA is an acronym for a government agency that you keep repeating as if it adds any credibility to your warmist religion. NASA is filled with... wait for it... self-interested PEOPLE who respond to the same incentives as everyone else, and the incentives are to find AGW, not to not find it. They also hire these people called "climate scientists" who self-selected, were selected, screened, and indoctrinated by all the scumbags who wrote these emails. Their "science" is corrupted, and your source of information is no better than citing The Day After Tomorrow.

Say it with me. NASA is an acronym for a government agency.

Nah, you're too busy frothing at the mouth.

Why did the emails take so long to come out? Apparently you've never done e-discovery. In a bulk download of emails, there are THOUSANDS of emails with extraneous information that have to be sifted through. No one cares what Michael Mann wrote to his wife about their weekend plans.

No one cherry picked the emails. They are all, with their entire text and context, available from the original source which you obviously didn't bother to read. Go to Watts Up With That and he has a link to the archived files.

So long, and thanks for playing Cedric is a Blowhard.

CenTexTim said...

Cedric -

NASA is an organization that, like any other organization, is primarily interested in its own survival first. Furthermore, NASA is not infallible. I can cite two very prominent failures (Challenger and Columbia) along with several less notable ones.

"And the NAS, and the Royal Society and NOAA and the Americal Chemical Society and all the rest of 'em."

They are not infallible either. And consensus in science can be overrated. For example, Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, and many others made significant contributions because they went against the prevailing 'wisdom' of the time.

As for 'go to the source,' that means the data, not the organizations that write self-serving reports based on the data. There are so many basic questions that remain open to debate - what is the definition of 'global warming' or 'global climate change'? How is it measured? Over what period of time? Unless and until we agree on these basics, I can take the same data set that NASA et al. use and by changing the parameters arrive at a very different conclusion.

Note that I am not taking one side of the other of this debate. I am merely suggesting that there are a number of unresolved questions, and that you keep an open mind, just as you suggest others do.

Cedric Katesby said...

...your warmist religion.

NASA is not a religion.
NASA scientists are not priests.
Going to the NASA website is not in the least bit religious.
Really.
Neither is the USGS.

NASA is filled with... wait for it... self-interested PEOPLE...

Pure handwaving.
Your paranoia is not evidence.

If you have evidence of a fraud or a hoax then call the police.
Press charges.
I dare you.

Fraud is a crime.

They also hire these people called "climate scientists" who self-selected, were selected, screened, and indoctrinated by all the scumbags who wrote these emails...

How sad that you have no details and are forced to rely on vague assertions.

How?
How did "they" manage to do this over the entire planet?
How did they completely cover every single Earth Science discipline?
It's not just climatology.
It's oceanography and biology and geology and chemistry and physics etc.
All of the Earth sciences.
Climatology does not work in isolation. It's not possible.
Neither does NASA.

And when?
When did "they" start screening people?
Was it ten years ago?
Twenty?
Fifty years ago?
You have absolutely no idea. You can't even being to guess.
A global conspiracy theory is a contradiction in terms. It's very, very silly and only worthy of comedy.

In a bulk download of emails, there are THOUSANDS of emails with extraneous information that have to be sifted through. No one cares what Michael Mann wrote to his wife about their weekend plans.

So why not just release them?
The hacker himself said that he just did a word search.
That takes only seconds.
People can do that themselves.
Heck, give 'em to Allen.

Why sit on them for two years?
That's stupid.
Why effectively aid the global hoax conspiracy by keeping all this "vital" information secret?
For two years?

No one cherry picked the emails.

Yes they did.
They still have not released them all.
They just dole them out in dribs and drabs.
It was about a 1000 last time.
Now it's about 5000.
Maybe if we are all nice and polite, we can meekly trust the hacker to release another 5,000 in two years time. The ones he personally chooses. We won't see the rest.

Go to Watts Up With That...

Another blog?
(giggle)
Priceless. Every single time, it always goes back to blogs.
Or maybe newspapers.

You are being led by the nose.
You never, ever fact-check.
You never use primary sources.

Nick said...

Prepare to bleet...

Bleet!

Cedric Katesby said...

NASA is an organization that, like any other organization, is primarily interested in its own survival first.

Yet that kind of thinking would work for anything.
Moon landing denialism for example.
(It would work perfectly. No need to change a thing.)
Or the HIV denialists trying to come up with an excuse to ignore the NIH on HIV research.
Or the tobacco industry.

Furthermore, NASA is not infallible.

I never said they were.
I said that when I want science information I go to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Can you think of a better way?

I mean that question in all seriousness. Can you think of a better way?

If I want information about the moon landings, can you thing of a better source than NASA?

How about volcanoes and the gasses they release? Or the risk of earthquakes in a region?
Can you think of a better source of information than say, the USGS?

Or the dangers of pertussis or anthrax? Can you think of a better source of information than say, the NIH or the CDC?

Yet Allen uses newspapers.
And no-name blogs.
It's never primary sources of information.
Never.
That's dangerous and an open invitation to get hopelessly misinformed.

There's no comparison to the way I research a scientific topic in the public eye and the way Allen or Nick would do it.
My standards are much higher.

(They are so much higher that Nick feels compelled to lie about it. Hence the babble about "wikipedia" and Al Gore's movie.)

And consensus in science can be overrated. For example, Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, and many others made significant contributions because they went against the prevailing 'wisdom' of the time.

This is the Galileo gambit.
HIV deniers use this one too.
And creationists.
And the tobacco industry.
Brave dissidents fighting the established orthodoxy yadda, yadda, yadda.

Just because there is a consensus in science, does not mean that it's wrong. Nor is it a good idea to just shrug your shoulders and ignore a scientific consensus because (goshdarnit) you don't like the results.

As for 'go to the source,' that means the data, not the organizations that write self-serving reports based on the data.

And this is different from what the moon landing deniers or the creationists or the antivaxxers would say...how?

Unless and until we agree on these basics, I can take the same data set that NASA et al. use and by changing the parameters arrive at a very different conclusion.

What stops you?
What stops any scientific community completely unrelated to NASA from drawing different conclustions?
We are talking about every single scientific community on the planet.
All of them.
There are no exceptions. Look this up for yourself. Don't just take my word for it. Spend 30 seconds and confirm what I claim. Please.

So how does that come about?
Magic?
Mind control?
Kommies?

I am merely suggesting that there are a number of unresolved questions, and that you keep an open mind, just as you suggest others do.

No climate denier talking point survives contact with primary sources of information.
It's all suspicion and innuendo and paranoia and hearsay.

This is not just about climate change. This is about any scientific issue in the public arena. Science is the study of reality. It is not a religion.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. There is a big difference between being a skeptic and a plain old-fashioned denier. That difference is in the methodology you adopt to ensure you are an informed citizen.

CenTexTim said...

Okay, it's clear that we are arguing religion here, not science.

I'm not sure what moon landing denialism has to do with global warming. Nor did I invoke the Galileo Gambit ("the notion that if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right" - from your cite). I merely pointed out that consensus does not always equal infallibility.

As for 'better' (Your term - I prefer 'alternate,' since that implies a willingness to be more open minded) sources of information, let's just take one of your examples: volcanic gases. The World Organization of Volcano Observatories is an international consortium of institutions that study and monitor volcanoes, under the umbrella of a larger international scientific community. That is a legitimate alternative source of information to the USGS. The same claim of legitimate alternative sources of information holds true for the other examples you give.

Regarding your statement that "every single scientific community on the planet" is in agreement on this topic, I refer you to a U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works study: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.

Again, note that I am not denying the existence of global warming. Nor am I supporting it. I am saying that, IMO, the question remains open. And the follow-up question - if global warming exists, is it man-made or natural - is even less settled. See the recent article in Nature.

"It sounds like a conspiracy theory: 'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that."

Nick said...

NASA
Newspapers
No name blogs
You're "better" than that
People are "lying" about you
You consult the ultimate sources of the ultimate questions of life, the universe and everything.

And you think that if you repeat yourself, your meaning will become more clear to lesser mortals.

I already provided you with an example of a scientific consensus that was corrupted by dogmatism. Centex Tim provided you with others.

Your linky love doesn't demonstrate any understanding of global warming or science in general. I don't believe you understand a word on any of those websites. Anthony Watt is far more educated and informed than you, and his first comment about the emails was that he could not (at that time) confirm their authenticity. This man is not "no name", and he's made a career of demonstrating the enormous shortcomings of climate research. He's not only demonstrated many times that the data inputs are garbage, but that the statistical methods they used were highly dubious. The emails strongly suggest their manipulation of data was nothing less than fradulent. Their dogs ate their homework.

You're oblivious to the corrupting influences of power, money, and ideology on establishment science that is plainly revealed in these emails.

You said that Allen took quotes out of context, yet when I gave you information to find the source, you ignored it, preferring to persist in ignorance.

Michael Mann doesn't deny these emails are genuine, but you do. The judge would overrule your hearsay objection on the basis of statement against interest.

Cedric, you are a nutcase, way overdue for therapy.

Cedric Katesby said...

I'm not sure what moon landing denialism has to do with global warming.

The points you bring up are the same.

NASA is an organization that, like any other organization, is primarily interested in its own survival first.

Therefore, America didn’t go to the moon. Their just faking it to protect their own interests.
Not.

Nor did I invoke the Galileo Gambit…

Yes, you did.

And consensus in science can be overrated. For example, Einstein, Galileo, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, and many others made…

That’s the Galileo gambit. It works for moon landing deniers and HIV deniers and all the rest. No need to change a thing. Your opinion goes against the consensus. You name drop Galileo.
(shrug)

That is a legitimate alternative source of information to the USGS.

I agree. Look at what you did. You went to a scientific community that (gasp) specialized in volcanoes.
You didn’t go to a blog or a newspaper article.
Blogs and newspaper articles are not a valid, alternative source of information.

If you can do that with volcanoes then you can do that with HIV research. If you can do that with HIV research then you can do that with tobacco and cancer. If you can do that with tobacco and cancer, then you can do that with climate change or any other scientific topic.

Regarding your statement that "every single scientific community on the planet" is in agreement on this topic, I refer you to a U.S. Senate…

Why are you doing a bait-and-switch?
If you disagree with my statement that every single scientific community on the planet is in agreement then…name a single scientific community that clearly is not.
It would take you thirty seconds, tops!

See the recent article in Nature.

Yes, I know about it. Why cherry pick a single article from Nature and ignore the rest? If you want to use Nature as a resource then that’s a great idea.
Use it properly. Avail yourself of all the articles in Nature on the subject of climate change. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence will become apparent very quickly.

Again, note that I am not denying the existence of global warming. Nor am I supporting it. I am saying that, IMO, the question remains open.

Your opinion is not supported by any scientific community on the planet.
You are ignoring their conclusions and you don’t have good cause to do so.

Cedric Katesby said...

I already provided you with an example of a scientific consensus that was corrupted by dogmatism. Centex Tim provided you with others.

It's called the Galileo Gambit.
Been there, done that.

Your linky love doesn't demonstrate any understanding of global warming or science in general.

Nothing to do with me.
It's all about NASA.
Say it with me slowly.
NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
No exceptions.

I don't believe you understand a word on any of those websites.

NASA does.
I don't get my science information from blogs or newspapers.
My standards are higher than that.

...he's made a career of demonstrating the enormous shortcomings of climate research.

Says who?

He's not only demonstrated...

Says who?

The emails strongly suggest their manipulation of data was nothing less than fradulent.

What data is fraudulent?
Name it.
Spell it out.
Why do you not call the police?
Why does nobody call the police?
Go ahead and press charges or sit quietly and eat your pudding.
Put up or shut up.

You're oblivious to the corrupting influences of power, money, and ideology on establishment science that is plainly revealed in these emails.

How?
How do you get from emails to the spooky global conspiracy of power, money, ideology in the establishment?
Give details.

You said that Allen took quotes out of context...

Yes, he did.
There's no context. People are reading into them what they want to read into them. They don't know what the emails refer to. They have no idea.

Michael Mann doesn't deny these emails are genuine, but you do.

Why do you lie? I don't deny that the emails are genuine.
(shrug)

Cedric, you are a nutcase, way overdue for therapy.

That's rich coming from someone who makes sheep impressions on the internet. You have nothing but hapless handwaving.
You are being led by the nose.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

All,
Please understand and enjoy being alive for this. Whoever swiped them is going to be releasing more and more of them prior to each UN Climate boondoggle for years.
What I'm starting to delight in is the occasional use of the phrase "the cause". Love it, love it, love it !!

Nick Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedric Katesby said...

I suggest you spend some time reading posts on Watts Up With That...

I don't get my science information from blogs.
Or newspapers.
My standards are higher than that.
Yet you use blogs.

I go to NASA.
Plus every single scientific community on the planet.
You don't.

...where a real scientist demonstrates every day...

NASA has real scientists.
(shrug)

They demonstrate their findings in the peer reviewed literature.
Science has no prophets. I never bother with individuals. Only the vast body of work gets my attention. All of it.

The emails show in great detail how these so-called climate scientists conspired...

Then call the police.
Put up or shut up.
You have the "great detail" you need, right?
Good.
Call the police.
Fraud is a crime.

If you knew anything about statistics...

But I don't. I never claimed such a thing.
However, the American Statistical Association does.
Guess why I mention them.
(Go on, guess.)

...and examined the infamous "hockey stick,"...

It's only "infamous" on blogs.
If you go to the primary sources of information, you'll find that it's not "infamous" at all.

Climate denier talking points do not survive contact with primary sources.
You are forced to go to blogs and newspaper articles.

...you don't know a damned thing about statistics or climate science.

Sure. I freely admit it.
I also know nothing about volcanoes.
Yet when I want to know something about volcanoes, I'll go to the USGS. Or perhaps WOVO. They are good too.

What I won't do is just read a newspaper article or a blog.
My standards are higher than that.

Statistics?
Sounds like a job for the AMA.

Climate Change?
Sounds like a job for NASA or the Royal Society or the NAS or maybe NOAA or the AAAS or the RMET or the CSIRO or the British Antarctic Survey.
They are all good. There's lots to choose from.
In fact, I choose them all.
Every single one on the planet.

You eat the corn out of Michael Mann's crap, and ask for seconds.

You are lying again.
I've never mentioned Michael Mann.
Science doesn't work like a religon.
There are no prophets in science.
I don't bother with individuals.
They don't interest me.

Your compulsion with feeble fisking is as pointless as it is boring.

It settles your hash nicely.
You have nothing to offer except recommendations to read blogs and make sheep impressions.

I, on the other hand, have NASA.
Plus every single scientific community on the planet.


You are not a skeptic, you are a sucker.

Cedric Katesby said...

Whoever swiped them is going to be releasing more and more of them prior to each UN Climate boondoggle for years.

Sure. They will choose which ones to release from the same stolen pile.

Maybe in another two years.
You don't mind waiting.
Best to keep the rest of the shocking evidence secret for now. That's the usual way for a whistleblower to behave, right?

Maybe they will release 6000 emails next time or even 20000 emails. Lucky you.

What I'm starting to delight in is the occasional use of the phrase "the cause".

Yes.
That's all you need. You will probably repeat it often. Probably every time you spot snow in your backyard or get ice cubes from your freezer. You have no idea what it actually means but you'll go ahead and use it anyway.
Fact-checking is beyond you.

Shorn of context, nothing has meaning.

My dear Dr. Gray

I must thank you for your two very valuable emails. It is extremely kind of you to say that my emails have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.


Damning stuff.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained in my email.

Oh dear. Sounds fishy.

I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last email you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.

Shocking.

CenTexTim said...

This is pointless. It is akin to arguing religion, in that no one is going to change anyone else's mind. So at this point all I will do is wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving - even Cedric.

Nick Rowe said...

How many peer reviewed journal articles do you have, Cedric?

Hint: not as many as me.

Cedric Katesby said...

It is akin to arguing religion, in that no one is going to change anyone else's mind.

Getting your science information from NASA is not religious.
Not even a little bit.
It's as non-religious as getting your science information from WOVO or any other scientific community.
No religion involved at all.
Nor is it "socialist".
;)

Science and religion are not the same and it's easy to spot the difference.

...no one is going to change anyone else's mind.

It's entirely possible to change my mind. I'm not in the least bit dogmatic. My standards are very fair and reasonable and are the same standards for scientists everywhere. I use the same standards all the time for all scientific topics. I don't pick and choose.

The same goes for NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

You have no good reason to simply ignore what NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is trying to tell you.
There's a glaring difference between genuine skepticism and outright denialism.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

Cedric Katesby said...

Hint: not as many as me

Do you have as many as NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?

Do give details.

Nick Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cedric Katesby said...

Do you know why they did nothing, Cedric? Because they don't really believe any of this global warming crap.

How do you know that was the reason?

NASA wants FUNDING since we are not going to Mars any time soon. So they are going to play whatever tune is going to get them money.

If you have evidence of fraud, then call the police.
Fraud is a crime.
Honest.

NASA wants FUNDING...
Creationists say the same thing.

Claim CA321.1:

"The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists' pay; they cannot be considered objective.

Response:
1.Scientists get rewarded for overthrowing currently accepted ideas (if they can do so with evidence) and for proposing new theories that lead to new research. Any bias from material gain would be against the accepted theory of evolution.

2.Many research scientists could make more money in industry. They do science because they enjoy it.
3.The complaint applies equally to anti-evolutionists."

The same goes for the moon landing deniers.

Funding:
"It is claimed that NASA faked the landings to forgo humiliation and to ensure that it continued to get funding. NASA raised about US$30 billion to go to the Moon, and Bill Kaysing claims that this could have been used to "pay off" many people. Since most conspiracists believe that sending men to the Moon was impossible at the time, they argue that landings had to be faked to fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise: "achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth". Others have claimed that, with all the known and unknown hazards, NASA would not have risked the public humiliation of astronauts crashing to their deaths on the lunar surface, broadcast on live TV."

The methodology and the excuses of kooks are always the same. There is nothing new.

When you say you're "better than that,' what you mean is that you are being fooled by higher paid liars.

Not at all.
I don't get my science information from blogs.
I get it from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
No exceptions.

Those of us who are smart, and wise, and savvy... would not place their faith in blogs of all things. It's a stupid thing to do.
Primary sources are a much better choice.

We understand that leftists...

When did "the leftists" secretly take over NASA?
Was it before or after NASA helped America win the Cold War?

Look at how often you repeat yourself in comment after comment.

I repeat myself because you keep ignoring it.
Remember the lies you told?

You cling to your theories...

They are not "my" theories.
Nothing to do with me.
They come from NASA.

"All you know about global warming you read on Wikipedia and saw in Al Gore's "the planet has a fever" movie."

Lie.
Everything I know about global warming is from NASA.

You eat the corn out of Michael Mann's crap...

Never mentioned Mann. Not even once.
However, I have mentioned NASA and every single scientific community on the planet about a thousand times. You just stick your fingers in your ears and make sheep impressions.

You have nothing except paranoia left over from the Cold War era.
Embrace reality.

NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.

You are being led by the nose.

Cedric, Wake the frack up!

Your version of being "awake" is to read no-name blogs and ignore every single scientific community on the planet.

(And make sheep impressions, of course)

Nick Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick Rowe said...

Here is the rubric for how Supermandia grades his students' term papers.

Read that, Calvin, and tell me that Mandia won't exercise his unalterable better judgment on AGW to undercut and intimidate any student who doesn't apply what Mandia considers "coherent" and "relation to coursework clearly demonstrated."

He's got only a Masters Degree in his field and teaches at a Community College, yet he's Supermandia! when it comes to debunking all the L.I.A.R.S.

His courses are about indoctrination, not education.

His dismissal of valid criticism is revealed by the smug attitude of his presentations. That, BTW, is the same smugness you present.

Cedric Katesby said...

Almost all of the climate scientists whose ass-corn you nibble on have BLOGS...

I don't care about blogs.
I don't get my science information from blogs.
No matter who writes them.
My standards are higher than that.
Yours are not.
You use blogs all the time. It’s a stupid thing to do. You should use primary sources of information.

One of them there leftist scientists is Scott Mandia …

I don’t care if he’s Magic Invisible Sky Jesus.
Science doesn't work like a religion.
There are no prophets in science.
I don't bother with individuals.
They don't interest me. My standards are higher than that.
You, however, obsess over them.

Yes, fraud is a crime, and the people who are interpreting these emails are hot on the heels of Michael Mann and the other fraudsters. In fact, these emails specifically refer to unprofessional activities taken under government funding, i.e. fraud.

Wonderful. Any details?
When will these mysteriously vague people reveal themselves and call the police?

… In fact, these emails specifically refer to unprofessional activities…

Excellent. So, when can we all expect somebody somewhere to press formal charges? Or is it all to remain forever vague and postponed?

Cedric, it is these scientists who are making the extraordinary claims.

Which scientists?
You’ve only mentioned two.
What about NASA and all the other scientific communities on the planet?

I ignore what you're saying…

Yes, you do. I was right about that.
You also lie.

And you repeat yourself because you're mentally ill.

No, I repeat myself because you ignore what I say and you lie.
Simple really.

Leftists have taken over almost ALL of academia, Cedric. This comes as no surprise to anyone who has actually attended university. And leftists are monolithic in certain departments of academia such as English, Anthropology, Ethnic Studies, Sociology, and CLIMATE SCIENCE.

Of course they have. It’s a global leftist conspiracy. Covering all of the Earth Sciences and every single scientific community on the planet including NASA.
The conspiracy goes deep. Very deep.

If you're not a leftist, you won't get into a reasonably well-funded university.(...)you won't get a professor to guide your research.(...)he and his leftist committee won't pass you on your thesis defense.
And if you ever BECOME a climate science, these emails demonstrate that they will conspire NOT TO PUBLISH YOUR RESEARCH.


Yes, it’s funny how rationalistations for global conspiracies repeat themselves. Creationists make the same excuse.

Claim CA320:

“Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.”

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

1. The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution -- quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.

2. Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

Cedric Katesby said...

Yes, they are your theories…

Liar.
I don’t make theories. NASA does.
Say it with me slowly.
NASA.

But seriously, in all the words you've written on every post regarding AGW, you haven't said a word, not one word, to demonstrate any understanding of the topic whatsoever.

NASA understands the topic.
(shrug)

I don't believe you understand one word of what comes from any NASA publication or anywhere else.

NASA understands their own publications.
Honest.

I don't claim to know much about climate science, but I know a lot about statistics.

NASA knows a lot about climate science. They also know a lot about statistics.
The ASA also knows an amazing amount about statistics.

When I see bad statistics, I recognize it.

Talk is cheap on the internet.
Publish. Get of your lazy backside and enter the scientific arena and publish.
Less talky talky and more worky worky.

That's because I understand logic.

NASA understands logic. So does every single scientific community on the planet. No exceptions.

NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.

Alger Hiss… is not a valid comparison.

NASA and one individual are not remotely alike.

The accusations that you level against NASA regarding the spooky global leftist conspiracy on climate change are the same silly accusations as the moon landing kooks. There’s no difference.
It doesn’t work for the moon landing deniers and it won’t work for you.
It’s delusional.

Here is the rubric for how Supermandia…

I don’t care.
That’s not how an educated person gets their science information. He could be Hitler’s love child and teach interpretive dance in his classes. It's not important at all.

There are no prophets in science.

That, BTW, is the same smugness you present.

It’s difficult to keep a straight face when faced with a conspiracy theorist who sees “the leftists” simply everywhere and makes sheep noises on the internet.
I'm only human after all.

When do you suppose NASA was taken over by “the leftists”? Was it before or after NASA helped America to win the Cold War?
;)

Nick Rowe said...

So you've just confirmed that you know nothing about global warming, and swallow hook, line, and sinker what someone tells you because they have the right patch on their shirt.

Is that how intelligent people are? They let others do all their thinking for them?

LOL.

Baaaaaaaaaaah

Cedric Katesby said...

So you've just confirmed that you know nothing about global warming…

Well, yes. I’ve told you several times already.
Re-read the thread.

Your linky love doesn't demonstrate any understanding of global warming or science in general.

Remember now?

I replied that it’s nothing to do with me.
It's all about NASA.
NASA knows a great deal about global warming.

I also told you that I know nothing about statistics.
I freely admitted it.

If you knew anything about statistics...

To which I replied that I don't and I never claimed such a thing.
Remember?

...you don't know a damned thing about statistics or climate science.

Yep. It’s absolutely true. I tried to make it clear to you the first time around.

I said “Sure. I freely admit it. I also know nothing about volcanoes.”

So you see, I was very clear.
I have already carefully and patiently explained to you that I know nothing about global warming or statistics or climate science or volcanoes.
Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nichevo. Nada. Opsoio.

I even made it clear that I don’t have any theories.

You cling to your theories...

So, of course, I replied that they are not "my" theories.
Nothing to do with me.
They come from NASA.

For example: The Theory of Evolution is not “my” theory. I had nothing to do with it. That’s the domain of biologists. Germ Theory? Also not mine. Heliocentric Theory. Also nothing to do with me.

Perhaps you need it written out for you in crayon?

…and swallow hook, line, and sinker what someone tells you because they have the right patch on their shirt…

Not true.
Again, I have spelled this out to you in simple English multiple times on this very thread.
There is no “someone” that I am prepared to believe hook, line and sinker.
You tried to tie me to Al Gore and then Mann and then Mandia.
I never once mentioned any of them.
Not now and not at any time in the past.
I don’t care about individuals. There are no prophets in science.

Is that how intelligent people are? They let others do all their thinking for them?

(sigh)

Another senior moment.
That’s not what I said.
Again, I have made this painfully clear.

“I don't care about blogs.
I don't get my science information from blogs.
No matter who writes them.
My standards are higher than that”
(…)
“Science doesn't work like a religion.
There are no prophets in science.
I don't bother with individuals.
They don't interest me.”
(…)
“My standards are very fair and reasonable and are the same standards for scientists everywhere. I use the same standards all the time for all scientific topics. I don't pick and choose.”

See?
No?

(...Facepalm...)

Look, I accept the Theory of Evolution. I am not a biologist and so, it’s fair to say that I know nothing about biology. Yet I accept the Theory of Evolution.

I also accept the link between cancer and smoking. I’m not a doctor or cancer specialist and so, it’s fair to say that I know nothing about cancer and what happens to your lungs when you inhale. Yet I don't smoke.

I accept the link between HIV and AIDS. I’m not a virologist or an epidemiologist so it fair to say that I know nothing about HIV or AIDS...but I accept the link between HIV and AIDS.

However, I am fortunate. I live in the modern world. There are a host of scientific communities that do understand these things and more. They understand these things because of science and the hard work that science demands.
Not religion.
Science.
There really and truly is a huge difference between science and religion.
Intelligent people avail themselves of the hard-won knowledge of scientific communities. Ignoring them and the conclusions they have come to is stupid.

What I will definitely NOT do is use blogs or newspapers. That’s a very bad idea.
Dangerous, in fact.