Is Climate Change Really Happening?

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by jfuh

Ah I see, that's where your intent is, to discredit peer reviewed publications. Asside that you're jumping to conclusions, neither Jones nor Mann are editors but the favorite, as well as Hansen, to be attacked by the denialist crowd.
This most certainly does not discredit peer review by any means, quite the contrary it calls for greater neccesity of. The denialist crowd would luv nothing more than to discredit peer review as they don't wish to have their bullshit called out for being so.

You really don't get reading english, I mean, you can't, not and misinterpet my posts the way you do. My intent is NOT to discredit the peer review process itself, but your reliance upon a CORRUPTED peer review process as your sole and complete source of information. My intent is to debunk your cultist belief that ONLY peer reviewed material published in cult approved journals are significant to the disscussion at hand.

Quite simply, when you are required to be a cultist in order to publish, only cultists are published.

Originally Posted by jfuh

Your acceptance is determinent on me? Or whether or not the outcome agrees with your prejudice?
You haven't been following what I've been repeating to you have you? I said I will gladly accept whatever comes from the investigations.

No, it depends on how the investigation is conducted, whether all the players are transparent in the process, or if it's closed door, back room.

I don't believe you'll gladly accept the outcome if the investigation goes against Jones, et al. You'll be here, moaning about "deniers".

[clownboy]

Just wanted to add this link into the discussion. A very good explanation of the IDL (from the emails) used "smooth" the data.

If you're interested, read all the comments. They are lengthy but very informative.

[CockySOB]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Just wanted to add this link into the discussion. A very good explanation of the IDL (from the emails) used "smooth" the data.

If you're interested, read all the comments. They are lengthy but very informative.

Good link and good explanation of the problems facing anyone attempting to validate a hypothesis about AGW on the CRU data.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

You really don't get reading english, I mean, you can't, not and misinterpet my posts the way you do. My intent is NOT to discredit the peer review process itself, but your reliance upon a CORRUPTED peer review process as your sole and complete source of information. My intent is to debunk your cultist belief that ONLY peer reviewed material published in cult approved journals are significant to the disscussion at hand.

Quite simply, when you are required to be a cultist in order to publish, only cultists are published.

No, of course not, you're not attempting to discredit the peer review process, it's just simply that it is a cult.

Originally Posted by clownboy

No, it depends on how the investigation is conducted, whether all the players are transparent in the process, or if it's closed door, back room.

You want them to have a camera tailing them to count as transparent?

Originally Posted by clownboy

I don't believe you'll gladly accept the outcome if the investigation goes against Jones, et al. You'll be here, moaning about "deniers".

I'm not the one who's basing my judgement of frivolous out of context sound bites from denialist spin forums/medium.
You're prejudice against my judgement speaks volumes about how you view this entire story all together. You've already judged that AGW is a cult, and that only by acceptance of the cult can anyone publish. Swap some words to that statement. Evolution is a cult, and only by acceptance of the cult can anyone publish.
That statement needn't be justified nor validated in any way because of the simple fact that it's already calling the science as bias and faith based. That could not be further from the truth and is a total obfuscation of the reality.
source
Peer review remains the only legitimate and valid source of scientific knowledge even on climate science.
Conspiracy to keep out dissent? Bogus, runs along the same conspiracy mentality of a liberal media conspiracy that wants to silence conservatives.
From my source

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

Additionally
Source 2
Are they too are in on the conspiracy?
The fallacy of the argument of foul play is the prejudice that there actually is a collusion and conspiracy for AGW - despite the reality that there is not.

The interviewed german scientists that you had posted I've been able to find out had been completely taken out of context. His statement was not against AGW itself (not saying that's your claim), but against some of the techniques and challenges to the methodology of modeling and reconstructions.
From his very own words that were clearly taken out of context by your source.

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor do I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitly Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As can be distilled from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

I'll speak for myself thank you very much. But tell you what CB, if the investigation indeed finds those involved in the emails to have acted improperly with regards to committing fraud of ANY kind or actually conspiring to keep out anyone of dissenting opinion and I do not accept it you can easily hold it against me. Hell even put it into your signature that I'm a liar.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Just wanted to add this link into the discussion. A very good explanation of the IDL (from the emails) used "smooth" the data.

If you're interested, read all the comments. They are lengthy but very informative.

The author concludes that since it "looks" like the hockey stick graph that it is the code that was used for the hockey stick graph?? How rediculous is that?
The hockey stick is not at controversy even with the theft of these emails. The National Academy of Sciences had already independently verified Mann's reconstruction and concluded that it was completely legitimate.
Thus the entire code analysis is more conspiracy befuddling.

I'm curious if you actually read all the comments?
Quote mining code : Deltoid

It's one thing to raise legitimate questions and challenges to AGW, or any other scientific theorum, but these conspiracy theories are completley baseless false accusations that is nothing more than cat nip for the denialist crowd or those that have a general mistrust of the scientific community as a whole either of their own ignorance or agenda pushing.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by jfuh

No, of course not, you're not attempting to discredit the peer review process, it's just simply that it is a cult.

No, and a reading of what I've posted thus far won't say differently. I'm saying the process has been subverted by the cultists.

Originally Posted by jfuh

You want them to have a camera tailing them to count as transparent?

Oh yes, please! No sarcasm, I'd love to see that.

Originally Posted by jfuh

I'm not the one who's basing my judgement of frivolous out of context sound bites from denialist spin forums/medium.

No, you've got your own choir to listen and preach to.

Originally Posted by jfuh

You're prejudice against my judgement speaks volumes about how you view this entire story all together. You've already judged that AGW is a cult, and that only by acceptance of the cult can anyone publish. Swap some words to that statement. Evolution is a cult, and only by acceptance of the cult can anyone publish.

Except those who do not accept the prevailing theories regarding evolution (that's a big bucket for a lot of smaller issues) aren't prevented from publishing (for that reason alone). My prejudice against your view stems from your choice of sides in a matter that is far from settled scientifically or politically. On one side you have the deniers as you call them, the other side are the cultists.

There is a large set of people in the middle, I don't see you as being a member of that set.

Originally Posted by jfuh

Conspiracy to keep out dissent? Bogus, runs along the same conspiracy mentality of a liberal media conspiracy that wants to silence conservatives.

Already shown you where scientists at the top of the field have said differently. Since Nature is oone of the publications that is at issue here, of course tyhey're going to deny anything is off. Ask the fox who got into the henhouse why don't you?

Originally Posted by jfuh

The interviewed german scientists that you had posted I've been able to find out had been completely taken out of context. His statement was not against AGW itself (not saying that's your claim), but against some of the techniques and challenges to the methodology of modeling and reconstructions.
From his very own words that were clearly taken out of context by your source.

Nonsense, you don't see it because you don't want to, doesn't fit the cult thinking. He clearly states that the malfeasance you deny so fiercely is going on right now in the field. Not only does he state it once, but then he clarifies it. What I posted is NOT a one-liner taken out of context.

Originally Posted by jfuh

I'll speak for myself thank you very much. But tell you what CB, if the investigation indeed finds those involved in the emails to have acted improperly with regards to committing fraud of ANY kind or actually conspiring to keep out anyone of dissenting opinion and I do not accept it you can easily hold it against me. Hell even put it into your signature that I'm a liar.

Don't need to go that far, I don't think you a liar, just counting the chickens before they've hatched. You bought the party line and now, when faced with significant outlier data you've chosen to stick with your guns.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by jfuh

The author concludes that since it "looks" like the hockey stick graph that it is the code that was used for the hockey stick graph?? How rediculous is that?
The hockey stick is not at controversy even with the theft of these emails. The National Academy of Sciences had already independently verified Mann's reconstruction and concluded that it was completely legitimate.
Thus the entire code analysis is more conspiracy befuddling.

I'm curious if you actually read all the comments?
Quote mining code : Deltoid

Of course, that's why I suggested it to all here. Really, try reading my posts.

Now, did YOU read all the comments from the link YOU just posted? Now contrast the two articles and their comments (yours is clearly not referencing mine but someones else's take on mine). Your's is derogatory in tone and largely knee-jerk political in response. Mine sticks more to scientific inquiry.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

No, and a reading of what I've posted thus far won't say differently. I'm saying the process has been subverted by the cultists.

And that is your dishonesty. There are no cultists. The use of cultist suggests that it's a faith of AGW rather than a science based on hard evidence.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Oh yes, please! No sarcasm, I'd love to see that.

Well then, given that such is completely unrealistic, it seems that unless the investigation arrives at your prejudged "cultist" conclusion you won't accept any other conclusion.

Originally Posted by clownboy

No, you've got your own choir to listen and preach to.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Except those who do not accept the prevailing theories regarding evolution (that's a big bucket for a lot of smaller issues) aren't prevented from publishing (for that reason alone). My prejudice against your view stems from your choice of sides in a matter that is far from settled scientifically or politically. On one side you have the deniers as you call them, the other side are the cultists.

Again, a dishonest description.

Originally Posted by clownboy

There is a large set of people in the middle, I don't see you as being a member of that set.

In matters of science there are not two equal arguments to any issue as there is in philosophy.
If you are to use the fallacy of appeal to majority, the majority of Americans are also very uncertain about the legitimacy of evolution as they are on the equality of homosexuals. Doesn't mean that someone that understand evolution and presents the argument for is somehow an extremist.
Indifferent to AGW, the denialist side does not have ANY legitimate science - only conspiracy and collusion claims.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Already shown you where scientists at the top of the field have said differently. Since Nature is oone of the publications that is at issue here, of course tyhey're going to deny anything is off. Ask the fox who got into the henhouse why don't you?

Nature is the publisher, not the publication - as far as I can see Nature is not at issue at all here. You sure you are posting from evidence rather than prejudice?
This speaks more of your distrust of science than anything else.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Nonsense, you don't see it because you don't want to, doesn't fit the cult thinking. He clearly states that the malfeasance you deny so fiercely is going on right now in the field. Not only does he state it once, but then he clarifies it. What I posted is NOT a one-liner taken out of context.

I read it quite clearly and posted his entire online post on the matter. He emphasized that AGW is not a hoax. If you follow up with his publications, his primary arguments are with Mann and statistical methodology of reconstructions.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Don't need to go that far, I don't think you a liar, just counting the chickens before they've hatched. You bought the party line and now, when faced with significant outlier data you've chosen to stick with your guns.

Yes, I'm sticking with what the science says and not what hyperpartisan political ideologues take on the matter.
Not every issue is a partisan issue. There is no partisanship regarding science.
AS for significant outlier data, I've already explained to you of what a Q-test does. Outlier does not equate to valid data.

I've been quite sincere in my posts to address these emails as well as concluding with - let's wait for the findings of the investigation.
You are the one that actually wants a camera to tail the investigation as the only sort of acceptable transparency knowing fully well that such is completely unrealistic.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Of course, that's why I suggested it to all here. Really, try reading my posts.

Now, did YOU read all the comments from the link YOU just posted? Now contrast the two articles and their comments (yours is clearly not referencing mine but someones else's take on mine). Your's is derogatory in tone and largely knee-jerk political in response. Mine sticks more to scientific inquiry.

Comparing two graphs to each other because they "look alike" is hardly a scientific comparison hence the derogatory tone towards the author's conclusion - not yours.
You simply ignore the author's juxtaposition amd call it a "scientific" inquiry? That's rediculous.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by jfuh

Comparing two graphs to each other because they "look alike" is hardly a scientific comparison hence the derogatory tone towards the author's conclusion - not yours.
You simply ignore the author's juxtaposition amd call it a "scientific" inquiry? That's rediculous.

Wow, let's kill two birds with one stone, BOTH of your replies betray you as fully a cultist in this matter. I've said it before, but maybe if I say it differently it'll be more understandable for you - just because you believe in AGW doesn't make you a cultist. Disregarding any evidence to the contrary of your belief out of hand does. The latter is you.

You refuse to listen to any voice from the scientific community unless it's saying exactly what you expect to hear. When you tell us all that there is no corruption of the peer review process, no exclusions or censorship, and then I show you where a top IPCC contributor outright says there is, the only part you see in the paragrah posted is that he still believes in AGW. Remarkable.

Well, I get it, you're gonna ride this bandwagon to the end. Better hope it's ultimate destination isn't over the cliff.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Wow, let's kill two birds with one stone, BOTH of your replies betray you as fully a cultist in this matter. I've said it before, but maybe if I say it differently it'll be more understandable for you - just because you believe in AGW doesn't make you a cultist. Disregarding any evidence to the contrary of your belief out of hand does. The latter is you.

What evidence? Post after post after post you've not provided any evidence whatsoever. I've continually stated, that neither you nor I have a full picture of the story about those emails and to await the conclusions of the independent investigation, it is you who are alluding that anything short of a complete video taping of the investigation would lead you to disregard the investigation - and I'm the cultist? Nothing but dishonest character assassination. Without even addressing the facts, without even addressing the issue, all you need is to cast doubt and you can dismiss all the claims. Particularily, through the character assassination you can dismiss the argument I've made which is unless it's published in a peer reviewed scientific medium that it's illegitimate; and then all blogs and all opinion articles in popular mediums becomes legitimate "concerns" and "challenges" to AGW.
Which is all this "climategate" is, a character assassination of Jones, Mann ect. Without even bothering to address their research, the email "scandal" is enough to silence them.
Even you have come out and said so about Jones, that's the conclusion you arrived at without any regard to what the investigation may or may not find you've already completely dismissed jones as a legitimate source. Which is nothing new, this is exactly the same kind of bs that the denialist crowd has been screaming of ever since the political debate started - the vast scientific conspiracy for political and monetary gains of populist "mainstream" scientists who look to silence all dissent. Which is ironic, because you are here advocating for the silencing of Jones and Mann.

It's also rediculous and absurd to be calling the acceptance of AGW as a belief, that's indifferent to claiming that I believe the sun rises in the east rather than knowing it does.
It's semantics for character assassination rather than relying on legitimate facts - which is only what the denialist crowd has. To base their arguments on prejudices, stereotypes and fear mongering of otherwise ignorant masses.
I've provided you with counter evidence and critical analysis from the scientific community - nature publication, and you said that Nature was in on the conspiracy as well, is it? Evidence?
I'm sorry cb, but based on your responses it's clear that you're prejudice against AGW.
Your counter arguments are indifferent to the creationist and ID'ers because you've already assumed guilt.
So much for innocent until proven guilty huh?

Originally Posted by clownboy

You refuse to listen to any voice from the scientific community unless it's saying exactly what you expect to hear.

Originally Posted by clownboy

When you tell us all that there is no corruption of the peer review process, no exclusions or censorship, and then I show you where a top IPCC contributor outright says there is, the only part you see in the paragrah posted is that he still believes in AGW. Remarkable.

Believe, corruption, censorship, and conspiracy, it's semantics. You rely on emotion rather than the facts.
I've responded to you explaining to you how his statement was taken out of context because you want to "believe" that there is such just so that you are right.
The facts do not support your argument, not even in the least. As I've said, if you were not so academically lazy as to only read from popular news mediums instead of reading the scientific literature there is no conspiracy, there is no censorship and there is no corruption or collusion. Such may be true in the political world, but is most certainly not true in the scientific world.
Do exchanges and arguments get heated? Yes absolutely, scientists are human after all. But do reviewers shut out those who simply disagree with their opinions? No the peer review is judged solely on the merits of the content via rationale and conclusions, not on their personal agenda or opinion. It's not as if there isonly one reviewer or editor for a given publication (except less popular and lower impact journals may have just one or two editors), but several. If you are first rejected and the grounds for are baseless you can easily appeal to have other's review.

You want to believe that there is a conspiracy, you want to believe that there is censorship, but there isn't. Zorita was not arguing that a dissent against AGW was not tolerated, he was talking of the politically correct atmosphere that made alternative explainations difficult to progress and suppressed creativity.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Well, I get it, you're gonna ride this bandwagon to the end. Better hope it's ultimate destination isn't over the cliff.

Fine, show evidence that the code used for Mann's hockey stick was indeed using the very equations and code that you sourced. Prove that it is exactly what he did rather than just an arbitrary equation to test or try a data set or even something that is completely unrelated.
Please, don't play me for stupid, this is nothing but a highly dishonest attempt of character assassination, you get to simultaneously claim that web blogs and opinion articles are legit as they are silenced from mainstream publication because of the scientific conspiracy and you get to disregard Mann and Jones as legit.
Or are you going to wait until the independent investigation concludes and releases their findings?

[Bateman]

In a way I hope MMGW is true, otherwise I'm wasting my time driving a big fuck off heavy van around in the hope that I might in my own small way be helping to drown Bangladesh.

[clownboy]

Not a single thing you just said is true. Not about my arguments, which you so obviously misunderstand. Not about the so-called "character assassination", there is none - it was character suicide on the parts of Jones, Mann, et al. Not about any conclusions made.

Acceptance of AGW IS a belief, it's not been proven in any but the cultist's mind. To illustrate, the one sentence out of the paragrah of text by the IPCC contributor that you will accept is also your downfall - he still BELIEVES in AGW.

You hate the cultist label, but it's fair game in your book to call those who disagree with you, "denialists". That right there is yet another indication of your cult status.

Nowhere did I say I wouldn't accept the independent review unless it was filmed throughout - that was your suggestion. Again, reading comprehension has been your mortal enemy since you started posting here. You're really not as bilingual as you believe yourself to be.

We'll wait for the results of the investigations, and then I'll laugh at your cult status some more.

Added: Upon reflection, I suspect I know why you're so far into this cult thing. You work in the applied sciences don't you? If it turns out I'm wrong in not accepting the conclusions of the AGW crowd, my career is intact, but you? If you are wrong, and you've just ridden along on the bandwagon, gone with the flow - that's a huge black mark on your career record, directly contrary to the basics of scientific skepticism, and a never-ending source of embarassment for you.

[Bateman]

Who gives a shit? The world gets hotter and colder all the time. I'm more worried about pollution, overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat and all the other things everyone has forgotten about since we all became obsessed with CO2. If it wipes us all out that's not a bad thing for the planet, just for us and we don't deserve any better.

Mostly be the darkies who cop the shit and they're always dying of something anyway. If the Thames barrier fails drastically we'll get another twenty years grace to sort out our immigration problem.

[VanishingPoint]

Originally Posted by Bateman

Who gives a shit? The world gets hotter and colder all the time. I'm more worried about pollution, overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat and all the other things everyone has forgotten about since we all became obsessed with CO2. If it wipes us all out that's not a bad thing for the planet, just for us and we don't deserve any better.

Mostly be the darkies who cop the shit and they're always dying of something anyway. If the Thames barrier fails drastically we'll get another twenty years grace to sort out our immigration problem.

God, you are terrible---- but it is nice to have you back.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Bateman

Who gives a shit? The world gets hotter and colder all the time. I'm more worried about pollution, overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat and all the other things everyone has forgotten about since we all became obsessed with CO2.

About where I am. On a related note, those new lightbulbs that we're all supposed to adopt, well I did. You ever read the warnings that come with those? If one breaks we're directed to immediately evacuate the area and call the EPA.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Not a single thing you just said is true. Not about my arguments, which you so obviously misunderstand. Not about the so-called "character assassination", there is none - it was character suicide on the parts of Jones, Mann, et al. Not about any conclusions made.

Since when have private emails exchanges become character suicide?

Originally Posted by clownboy

Acceptance of AGW IS a belief, it's not been proven in any but the cultist's mind. To illustrate, the one sentence out of the paragrah of text by the IPCC contributor that you will accept is also your downfall - he still BELIEVES in AGW.

Did he say believe? There you go again with the dishonest portrayal

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of.

Originally Posted by clownboy

You hate the cultist label, but it's fair game in your book to call those who disagree with you, "denialists". That right there is yet another indication of your cult status.

Because you are a denialist, you deny the scientific concensus and the scientific facts. You believe that there is a conspiracy on nothing more than he said she said rather than any valid objective evidence and you refuse to accept the legitimacy of independent investigations unless you approve of the methodology employed. Denialist, denier are perfect descripters of exactly what such individuals are.
Cultist, religious, belief, priesthood, all are nothing more than soundbites to character assassinate the legitimacy of the scientific facts.

Originally Posted by Sarah Palin

"Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public's worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a 'sin' against the planet."

Good company you keep.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Nowhere did I say I wouldn't accept the independent review unless it was filmed throughout - that was your suggestion. Again, reading comprehension has been your mortal enemy since you started posting here. You're really not as bilingual as you believe yourself to be.

Since you've been dancing around the question I've posed to you how else is someone to assume your stance is other than they must fulfil your precondition. I posted that suggestion, you said that was exactly what you wanted, no sarcasm. There has been no reading comprehension block, only your dancing around the question.
If not then answer the question straight out, will you accept the findings of the independent investigation? Or must they satisfy your pre-condition? Or are they in the collusion as well?

Originally Posted by clownboy

We'll wait for the results of the investigations, and then I'll laugh at your cult status some more.

Becareful what you wish for.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Added: Upon reflection, I suspect I know why you're so far into this cult thing. You work in the applied sciences don't you? If it turns out I'm wrong in not accepting the conclusions of the AGW crowd, my career is intact, but you? If you are wrong, and you've just ridden along on the bandwagon, gone with the flow - that's a huge black mark on your career record, directly contrary to the basics of scientific skepticism, and a never-ending source of embarassment for you.

Yes, I work in the sciences, no I do not work on climatology, no this doesn't impact my career one iota. I'm arguing against your rejection of scientific facts and pointing out the fallacious nature of your stereotypes because I'm a member of this board who happens to know a thing or two about scientific publications and science.
Where you have applied clearly ignorant stereotypes against science in general as being a "cult" you're completely obfusgating what science is, from a search of knowledge from facts using a rational formulation to arrive at the most probable reasonable conclusion, into a faith indifferent to the religious organizations around the world.
The nickname "climategate" is a misnomer as it implies that something nefarious had been commited by the scientists, and without the need for any investigation, the characters involved have already been seen as guilty by public opinion. A more accurate description would be swifthack.
You even reject nature as a legitimate source and you're claiming it's not about character assassination? Please, don't hide behind this bogus miscomprehension crap, the emails have been nothing more than character assassintion.
I offered you an olive branch to just wait for the conclusion of the independent investigation, but instead of taking the reasonable approach and just saying, yep, we'll see, or your more aggrevated stance of "laugh at your cult status some more" you have to go in a frenzy to discredit all scientific literature as well as all scientists who acknowledge the evidence of AGW.
Here's the data

Yep, those that acknowledge AGW as a reality are really nothing more than cultist "beleivers". There's most certainly no trend in that data set whatsoever. It's interesting that you even have the courage to call the facts of AGW a belief when denying in the face of evidence is a belief.
You're in the majority? No you're simply ignorant and academically lazy. You choose to believe the hype of the denialists rather than to diligently look at the overwhelming evidence.
You choose to believe that nefarious actions have been made by those who's emails got hacked and were able to censor any dissenting evidence (despite the contrasting reality of the actions of the IPCC), without waiting for the findings of the independent investigation into the matter.
Instead of properly addressing that this email leak changes absolutely nothing in relationship to AGW other than the predictions made by a few groups involved, you have to label all those that accept the reality of AGW as "cultists".

Since you think that there is a conspiracy going on, here is what those private emails actually were addressing - source
The swifthack is about nothing more than character assassination, nothing new whatsoever.
But go ahead, also claim that CSI is in the conspiracy as well, claim that they are part of the cult of AGW as well, keep on singing that tune with Palin why don't 'cha.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by jfuh

Since when have private emails exchanges become character suicide?

When they become public and contain questionable actions and suggestions.

Originally Posted by jfuh

Did he say believe? There you go again with the dishonest portrayal

There you go with your questionable reading skills, from the article I posted:

The researcher added although he does not believe that manmade climate is a hoax, he and other researchers have been ‘bullied and subtly blackmailed’ to fit in the scientific mainstream.

Read more: Professor in climate change scandal helps police with enquiries while researchers call for him to be banned | Mail Online

Originally Posted by jfuh

Because you are a denialist, you deny the scientific concensus and the scientific facts. You believe that there is a conspiracy on nothing more than he said she said rather than any valid objective evidence and you refuse to accept the legitimacy of independent investigations unless you approve of the methodology employed. Denialist, denier are perfect descripters of exactly what such individuals are.
Cultist, religious, belief, priesthood, all are nothing more than soundbites to character assassinate the legitimacy of the scientific facts.

It was YOU who began the whole soundbite character assassination then with the denialist rhetoric. And of course I refuse to accept the result of ANY investigation where the methodolgy is suspect, no matter what label you stamp on it. That you suggest you wouldn't do the same is troubling from a scientist, or is that cultist?

Originally Posted by jfuh

Good company you keep.

Do I really have to google around for a like numbskull that believes in AGW, or do you realize the hole you stepped in?

Originally Posted by jfuh

Or are they in the collusion as well?

Who is "they"?

Originally Posted by jfuh

Where you have applied clearly ignorant stereotypes against science in general as being a "cult" you're completely obfusgating what science is, from a search of knowledge from facts using a rational formulation to arrive at the most probable reasonable conclusion, into a faith indifferent to the religious organizations around the world.

Except that I've done no such thing, and as much as I explain it to you, you see only what you want. It's like you selectively read sentences in a paragraph, ignoring all that don't speak to you. Being a scientist does not make you a cultist. I've said that before, you conveniently skipped over it.

Do I think there's a conspiracy to keep studies with conclusions that aren't consistent with showing AGW from being published in peer reviewed journals - yes I do. I think the evidence, testimony, and human nature suggests that.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by clownboy

When they become public and contain questionable actions and suggestions.

Did one of the correspondents within the emails make them public? Or did someone illegally hack into the server with nefarious intent that leaked them out?

Originally Posted by clownboy

There you go with your questionable reading skills, from the article I posted:

You posted from the article that took him out of context. I posted what Dr. Zorita actually posted. Hmmm, a conservative tabloid publishing what it interpreted someone said, vs what that individual actually said. You can hide behind that veil of "comprehension" all you want cb, the facts remain, Dr Zorita didn't say it was a belief.
Your claim was

Originally Posted by cb

he still BELIEVES in AGW

His actual words were

Originally Posted by Dr. Zorita

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of.

You claimed he still "believed" in AGW, when he said he did not think that AGW was a hoax.
Aside from the obvious difference of words used one statement is in the positive of agw, vs one is in the negative against the hoax.
Secondly, the disagreements between Mann and Zorita are well known within the scientific community. Without any evidence of wrong doing, there is no reason whatsoever that I should trust Zorita over the scientific process.
Especially since in 2004 Zorita had published a paper in Science against Mann's nature Hockey stick, that further discredits his claim of any "conspiracy" or "collusion".

Originally Posted by clownboy

It was YOU who began the whole soundbite character assassination then with the denialist rhetoric. And of course I refuse to accept the result of ANY investigation where the methodology is suspect, no matter what label you stamp on it. That you suggest you wouldn't do the same is troubling from a scientist, or is that cultist?

An eye for an eye I suppose? Someone that denies the science despite having been presented with the facts is a denialist - it's a perfect description. You are attempting to character assassinate, as are the denialists, by claiming that the science itself is a cultist belief.
There you go again though with the character assassination, do you have any shred of evidence that the investigation is being made in any questionable manner? Do you even know who is heading the investigation?
No, you don't, you don't have any evidence and I doubt you know who're heading the investigation in the UK and at Penn State. You're intent is to cast doubt into the investigations so as to continue your conspiracy theory and discrediting of not only the scientists involved, but primarily the simple matter of science requiring peer review to be legit.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Do I really have to google around for a like numbskull that believes in AGW, or do you realize the hole you stepped in?

Go ahead

Originally Posted by clownboy

Who is "they"?

For someone continually complaining about comprehension skills you're own seem to be questionable.
They in that paragraph was very clearly refering to those who are investigating swifthack.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Except that I've done no such thing, and as much as I explain it to you, you see only what you want. It's like you selectively read sentences in a paragraph, ignoring all that don't speak to you. Being a scientist does not make you a cultist. I've said that before, you conveniently skipped over it.

Funny how then you jump at any chance to suggest the "cult" of AGW.

Originally Posted by clownboy

Do I think there's a conspiracy to keep studies with conclusions that aren't consistent with showing AGW from being published in peer reviewed journals - yes I do. I think the evidence, testimony, and human nature suggests that.

What you have are private emails that spanned over a decade referencing to various different discussions taken out of context, allegations and pure speculation. You don't have any substantiated evidence to demonstrate validity for your accusations of conspiracy.
What's worse, even when demonstrated to you in providing proper context of those emails you refuse the explanations and still go right back into insisting that your read is accurate. Going so far into suggesting that third parties completely uninvolved in the hack were also colluding with the parties involved (publishing group Nature is in on it too), again, without any evidence whatsoever.

[Bateman]

Originally Posted by VanishingPoint

God, you are terrible---- but it is nice to have you back.

Thank you!