APP - Without candour, we can't trust climate science

OK, Cypress keeps linking us to peer reviewed research and you keep posting links to right wing op-eds. I wonder which has more credibility?

I mean come on Tin....the Wall Street Journal? I mean it's a fine business paper but you're going to site them about science? You might as well be siting the NY Times about fiscal conservatism.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OK, Cypress keeps linking us to peer reviewed research and you keep posting links to right wing op-eds. I wonder which has more credibility?

I mean come on Tin....the Wall Street Journal? I mean it's a fine business paper but you're going to site them about science? You might as well be siting the NY Times about fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...
"Newscientist" magazine is a right-wing op-ed?

Here's their answer to the "climategate" report:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...scientists-respond-to-climategate-report.html

Same magazine...

IT'S time to abandon the black-and-white fiction that human-induced climate change is fact or conspiracy. Instead, accept that the climate is changing and that there are shades of grey about how fast, how severe the impact will be and what we can do about it.

That's the message from leading scientists digesting the UK's official report into the "climategate" affair, in which private emails from the nation's Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich were made public in November 2009.

Muir Russell, a former civil servant who spent seven months investigating the affair, concluded in his official report, released on 7 July, that "the rigour and honesty of the scientists involved are not in doubt". But he exhorted them to show more openness, to shed their "unhelpful and defensive" attitude when responding to requests to share their data and to make more effort to engage with climate sceptics who dispute their data and conclusions.

More at link...
 
Damocles said:
"Newscientist" magazine is a right-wing op-ed?

Here's their answer to the "climategate" report:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...scientists-respond-to-climategate-report.html

Same magazine...

IT'S time to abandon the black-and-white fiction that human-induced climate change is fact or conspiracy. Instead, accept that the climate is changing and that there are shades of grey about how fast, how severe the impact will be and what we can do about it.

That's the message from leading scientists digesting the UK's official report into the "climategate" affair, in which private emails from the nation's Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich were made public in November 2009.

Muir Russell, a former civil servant who spent seven months investigating the affair, concluded in his official report, released on 7 July, that "the rigour and honesty of the scientists involved are not in doubt". But he exhorted them to show more openness, to shed their "unhelpful and defensive" attitude when responding to requests to share their data and to make more effort to engage with climate sceptics who dispute their data and conclusions.

More at link...
Click to expand...
I was refering to the Wall Street Journal.

But if you read the Newscience article it doesn't criticise the conclusions drawn about ACC or the data supporting it. It does criticise how IPCC managed access to the data and you've heard criticism about that from both myself and Cypress all ready. Be that as it may, it's still an Op-Ed piece.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I was refering to the Wall Street Journal.
Click to expand...
Yet you ignored the link to NewScientist, and by implication (intended or not) impugn both links.

Cypress has that habit. I post links to scientific papers, and they are completely ignored. I post links to OP pieces (usually because they refer to a scientific paper and I cannot find a more direct reference) and he impugns the source without addressing any content.

Additionally, while Cypress posts multiple links of articles on AGW, if you pay attention his actual sources are limited to a few selections. One would expect an outfit that supports AGW would publish multiple articles on AGW. What some may not expect (though they should) when these AGW supporters control many of the publishing outlets, it becomes difficult for dissenting opinion to be heard through the normal scientific channels. For instance, if a scientist working for NASA disagrees with the humanocentric conclusions of climate change, is his study going to get published on NASA's website, or will the study of the scientists who agree?

Reference the studies of Drs. Atkins, Agatston, and Almon, whose research on the effects of high carbohydrate content in our dietary habits were, quite literally, refused publication until they went public through other means and proved themselves right.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But if you read the Newscience article it doesn't criticise the conclusions drawn about ACC or the data supporting it. It does criticise how IPCC managed access to the data and you've heard criticism about that from both myself and Cypress all ready. Be that as it may, it's still an Op-Ed piece.
Click to expand...
Really? Last I saw it is the position of Cypress that the raw data leading to IPCCs conclusions does not need to be released.
 
Good Luck said:
Yet you ignored the link to NewScientist, and by implication (intended or not) impugn both links.
Click to expand...

I did? I'm not impugning the opinions of others. There entitled to them. In the case of the WSJ, there not exactly known as a source for sound science and their political bent on this topic is well known. So why should it merit credibility?

The Newscience article is only stating an opinion (criticism) that both Cypress and I made about IPCC's management of data and their political niavete (which is what they are primarily guilty of).

The lager point I'm making here is what do these criticisms have to do with the factual basis of ACC?
 
Good Luck said:
Yet you ignored the link to NewScientist, and by implication (intended or not) impugn both links.
Click to expand...

Hilarious.

"New Scientist" is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. And the article in question is an opinion article. Anyone can write anything they want in a non-peer reviewed web site or publication. It doesn't have to withstand any credible scrutiny or professional review.


I routinely cite and link to the most prestigious, most reputable, and most credible peer reviewed science that's out there. Dozens of times. Hundreds of times. You dudes aren't even close to being in the same ball park.


Y'all hollered that CRU scientists "lied", subverted the peer review process. That's what the three investigations focused on - the false assertions of your hollers. Why are you mad that they focused on what you complained about?

As for the science, the CRU temperature records are independely corroborated and validated by multiple, independent sources, including but not limited to NASA-GISS and Hadely CRUT. If you have plausible and credible evidence that the CRU temperature records are all mucked up, and that there is a vast global conspiracy to fake temperature records by other independent sources and entities, feel free to post it.


You can have an opinion if you want. You can speculate, guess, and presume. But you haven't provided anything that qualifies as a body of peer reviewed scientific work to substantiate anything you've said.

It's standard fair for the right wing, I suppose. The evolution deniers are now joining forces with the climate science deniers....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html


Science has always been subject to attack from the rightwingers and reactionaries. But science always wins in the end, because reactionaries don't have a leg to stand on, and unlike the reactionaires, science is based on observation, verification, and repeated testing. You can cling to your opinion articles, blogs, and non-peer reviewed "scientific" journals if you must. That doesn't mean I have to take it seriously.
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
I see Yurt's been teaching you how to employ all the highly refined debating skillz he himself employs so often.
Click to expand...

It's scary how much trust liberals like you place in people who were shown to be conspiring to control the scientific debate. You must have avoided reading the emails. Willful ingorance on your part. If you read the emails, you would know that Jones asked fellow scientists to delete emails related to discussions of the collusion that took place in respect to MBH98 and the splicing of REAL TEMPERATURES in place of proxy data that failed to support the CO2 paradigm.

History will not ignore this.

You can.
 
tinfoil said:
It's scary how much trust liberals like you place in people who were shown to be conspiring to control the scientific debate. You must have avoided reading the emails. Willful ingorance on your part. If you read the emails, you would know that Jones asked fellow scientists to delete emails related to discussions of the collusion that took place in respect to MBH98 and the splicing of REAL TEMPERATURES in place of proxy data that failed to support the CO2 paradigm.

History will not ignore this.

You can.
Click to expand...
Oh were not, were having fun laughing at your stuborness. No matter how much evidence is provided to you about your adherence to a silly conspiracy theory you still stick to it. This is certainly a case of psychological projection if ever I've seen one. The only one being willfully ignorant is you.

You are right, history will not and has not ignored it. These allegations have been investigated by a number of independent agencies and it has been determined that they were with out merit but that doesn't fly in the right wing blogoshphere does it?

The only thing the IPCC is guilty of is being politically naive about right wing opposition to climate research.
 
I'm curious.......can any of the Global Warming Alarmists tell me what the temperature trend is going to be over the next forty years and provide evidence for it?......we know we are on the tail end of a temperature change cycle that began about 20,000 years ago, but we have no idea whether it ended a decade ago and we're on the way back down, or whether it will last another thousand years before it drops......

if you idiots had dropped this silly apocalyptic argument and concentrated on fighting pollution we would have been far better off.......
 
I personally think this is simply more polarization of an issue that people generally agree on. Nobody wants to drink polluted water, nobody wants to breathe polluted air, we'd all like to save money on our electric bill and gas bill, almost all of us think it would be a good idea to get off the oil teat...

Yet instead we have to buy 100% something that we may believe has a bit more time to go before it reaches the level of a Theory in science.

Instead of working in the multitude of areas where there is room for compromise and solutions, we must convert. Rather than passing legislation that would help we must "believe"...

Nothing continues to get done, except groups of people are polarized politically.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh were not, were having fun laughing at your stuborness. No matter how much evidence is provided to you about your adherence to a silly conspiracy theory you still stick to it. This is certainly a case of psychological projection if ever I've seen one. The only one being willfully ignorant is you.

You are right, history will not and has not ignored it. These allegations have been investigated by a number of independent agencies and it has been determined that they were with out merit but that doesn't fly in the right wing blogoshphere does it?

The only thing the IPCC is guilty of is being politically naive about right wing opposition to climate research.
Click to expand...

Since Cypress continually ducks answering the following, perhaps you will do so for us????

1) WHO appointed the 'independent' panel members????

2) WHO are those members? (so we can look at THEIR credentials)

3) Do you believe that these panels addressed all of the questions that scientists skeptical of the global warming theory have asked?

4) Were there any admitted climate skeptics on the panels?

5) Were there any panel members who have proclaimed the 'debate is over' in the past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top