Willis Eisenbach has published an open letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the University Of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
It's one of the most devastating things I've ever read.
These guys invented global warming. They just sat around made up some data, and scared the living shit out of everybody with it. Now they can't find it. They are cornered.
They simply made it up. Billions and billions have been spent on this scam.
They made it up. It really is that simple.
If you're not totally sickened yet, go here. Or you can go here.
This one won't tell you anything you don't already know, but is a nice summary of the Return Of The Son Of Climategate emails.
Remember when skepticism was seen by most scientists as a virtue and not a vice? If you value Free Inquiry, I defy you to read these articles without crying.
It's one of the most devastating things I've ever read.
These guys invented global warming. They just sat around made up some data, and scared the living shit out of everybody with it. Now they can't find it. They are cornered.
They simply made it up. Billions and billions have been spent on this scam.
They made it up. It really is that simple.
If you're not totally sickened yet, go here. Or you can go here.
This one won't tell you anything you don't already know, but is a nice summary of the Return Of The Son Of Climategate emails.
Remember when skepticism was seen by most scientists as a virtue and not a vice? If you value Free Inquiry, I defy you to read these articles without crying.
76 comments:
Willis Eisenbach...
Who? Seriously, do you have any idea at all who he is? Fact checking? Hello?
...published an open letter...
Oh, another blog. What were the chances of that happening?
These guys invented global warming.
Who do you mean, "these guys"?
Dr Phil Jones?
Really? He's the cunning mastermind? Didn't he have any help or anything? Seems a pretty big job to organise a global conspiracy do steal billions and billions of magic, invisible dollars by yourself.
They just sat around made up some data...
What do you mean "some data"?
How does anybody create global warming from "some data"?
Sounds a tad vague. And tiny.
They simply made it up.
Ok, um, when?
Did "they" make it all up 10 years ago?
Or twenty?
Or...fifty years ago?
When did the global scientific conspiracy start?
They made it up. It really is that simple.
Then you could explain it all simply, yes?
"Forgive me of my skepticism. I know that in this fast food age of instant gratification, it's not fashionable to check everything and examine the evidence before rushing to judgement but that's the way I work. I'd rather be the last person to get it right than the first person to get it wrong."
Wow, how did I guess that Calvin Klein would pounce all over this.
His favorite phrase is "led by the nose." Yet it seems that Allen and I and others resistant to being led to conclusions (especially ones with consequences) without ethical, open, and conclusive evidence.
But CK just believes anything he's told by people who have letters after their names and who work for acronyms and wear patches that have stars and rocket ships on it. He doesn't understand a word they are saying, but he is perfectly happy to accept what they say as gospel.
In other words, he is being led by the nose.
Yet it seems that Allen and I and others resistant to being led to conclusions (especially ones with consequences) without ethical, open, and conclusive evidence.
It sounds so grandiose and noble when you phrase it like that. Yet it boils to you ditto-heading a tiny group of blogs run by nursing home escapees.
Every single time.
It always goes back to blogs and newspapers.
Mainstream science and primary sources are not your friends.
But CK just believes anything he's told by people who have letters after their names
You mean NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?
(smirk)
...and who work for acronyms...
You mean NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?
(giggle)
...and wear patches that have stars and rocket ships on it.
You mean NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?
(chuckle)
He doesn't understand a word they are saying...
Sure I do. NASA makes an effort to to communicate their conclusions to the public in quite simple terms. Even you should be able to understand it. Just google "NASA" and "climate change" and their official site pops right up.
...but he is perfectly happy to accept what they say...
I am perfectly happy to accept what NASA says?
(..thoughtful pause...)
Why yes indeed. I am. NASA does the work. I don't bother with spooky-wooky conspiracy theories. The world I live in is reality-based.
...as gospel.
Ah, another senior moment from you.
Science is not the same as religon.
They work differently. There is no "gospel" or magic invisible zombie Jesus in science.
Honest.
You are not a skeptic, you are a sucker.
You are being led by the nose because your research standards are woeful.
You never fact-check.
I don't get my science information from blogs and newspapers. It's a dumb thing to do. It's like wearing a sign around your neck saying "Please help me confirm my preconceptions."
No climate denier talking point survives contact with primary sources. They implode on contact every single time.
Global conspiracy theories don't work.
NASA, NASA, NASA, NASA.....NASA
Not Another Stupid Acronym.
1. I've already told you that these world famous scientists you go on and on about write BLOGS, yes, blogs, where they communicate their misinformation. And they consider the information on the anti-warmist blogs so important that they use their own blogs to criticize the anti-warmist blogs.
2. "Every scientific community" includes the IPCC that included anecdotes from hikers about melting glaciers in their ultrascientific reports.
How many of these scientific communities can you name, Calvin?
3. These scientists are LEFTISTS who hate capitalism. They will claim and believe ANYTHING that threatens the institution because they are hard wired to hate it (and themselves).
You hate yourself, Clark Kent, and so like them you chew on your cud and spread the gospel according to St. Albert. You may not even know you're doing it because this self hatred is deeply rooted in your subconscious.
You don't know the slightest thing about global warming - something you admit, but you're not even the least bit skeptical of the crap you're swallowing. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to just say that you don't know.
Your obsession with repeating the same bleeting mantras over and over demonstrates how badly the goodthink has infected you. You feel the inescapable need to respond to posts like Allen's because you have been conditioned toward crimestop.
First you deny the authenticity of the leaked emails. Then you question the timing of their release. Then you say that they lack context, and then you say they don't even mean anything if they are true.
Layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of crimestop and doublethink!
Your sources are all authoritative and everyone else who disagrees is under the influence of Emmanuel Goldstein.
Fisking every sentence
You're better than that.
Led by the nose.
I get my data from the best sources.
Giggle, chuckle, smirk, shrug.
You're putting your alleged physical reactions in writing. Do you realize how insane this makes you sound?
You need to log off your computer and run, not walk, to the nearest therapist's office.
I've already told you that these world famous scientists you go on and on about write BLOGS...
I don't get my science information from blogs.
Nor do I get my science from "world famous scientists".
Science is too important for that.
How many of these scientific communities can you name, Calvin?
Only a few, I'm afraid.
There are so many.
After all, we are talking about every single scientific community on the planet.
No exceptions.
There's NASA and the NAS and the AAAS and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society and the RMET and the CSIRO and the British Antarctic Survey and NOAA and the Americal Quaterney Association and the APS and the American Chemical Society and the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences and Royal Society of New Zealand and the National Research Council and the American Institute of Physics and the European Physical Society and the European Science Foundation and the ASA and the EFG and the European Geosciences Union etc.
All of them. No exceptions.
These scientists are LEFTISTS who hate capitalism.
Yes, of course they are.
They are all leftists.
Every single scientific community on the planet is filled with leftists.
The conspiracy goes deep. Very deep.
When did NASA get taken over by "the leftists"?
Was it before or after NASA helped America win the Cold War?
...the gospel according to St. Albert.
Science is not a religion.
I don't get my science information from an individual.
There are no prophets in science. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
...but you're not even the least bit skeptical...
I'm very skeptical.
That's why I only get my science from science sources.
I use NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Your obsession with repeating the same...
Well, I repeat NASA because you don't yet seem to understand that that's where I get my science information from.
So I repeat NASA.
Say it with me slowly.
NASA.
Plus you tell lies and I correct you and expose your lies.
Sadly, that does mean that I do sometimes have to mention NASA once or twice here and there. Otherwise people might get the mistaken impression that I get my science information from Al Gore or "leftists" or Wikipedia or something stupid and decietful like that.
First you deny the authenticity of the leaked emails.
Liar.
Then you question the timing of their release.
Yes, I did.
They are not new. That's a fact. They were kept secret from the public for two years. Not exactly classic whistleblower behaviour. Indeed, some of the emails are are just the same emails that they released last time.
Bet you didn't know that.
Then you say that they lack context, and then you say they don't even mean anything...
Emails don't mean anything without context. Context is important to understand anything. Without it, people are going to fixate on a tiny phrase and then endlessly repeat it. It's a silly exercise.
Your sources are all authoritative...
NASA does the work. They are world leaders in all sorts of scientific fields. That didn't happen by magic.
...and everyone else who disagrees is under the influence of Emmanuel Goldstein.
No, it's not "everybody else".
It's you and Allen.
(And no, I don't think you are under the influence of a fictional character in a novel. Honest.)
Do you realize how insane this makes you sound?
Well, at least I don't lie, do sheep impressions and see vague "leftist" global conspiracies everywhere.
(shrug)
How many of those did you know before you looked them up online?
Heh, heh, heh.
It's not even hard to make you look foolish. You do half the work yourself. :b
Like i said, you're ignorant, arrogant, and insecure.
How many of those did you know before you looked them up online?
What's your point?
There's lots of stuff I don't know.
Tonne and tonnes and tonnes of it.
Yet google and primary sources and mainstream science are my friends.
If I don't know something, I can look it up.
Easy.
Like i said, you're ignorant, arrogant, and insecure.
Oh but don't stop there!
Do go on.
You've also called me an oaf, a dunce, a blowhard, oblivious, a nutcase overdue for therapy, a moron, a rube, a maroon, a simpleton, a dupe, a gullible twit, a sucker, a nibbler of ass-corn, mentally ill, a complete waste of time and (the most hurful) smug.
Remember?
;)
So I'll just add your latest invectives to the pile.
Easy fix.
None of which changes the fact that I get my information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
All you have are blogs.
I don't need to create a strawman to make your postion look bad.
I don't need to lie.
All I need to do is to quote directly what you yourself say.
The whole blogs thing and a refusal to accept the conclusions of mainstream science?
Bad.
That's how people end up killing themselves.
Imagine you haven’t been feeling at the top of your game. Nothing consistently terrible, just a low-grade fever you notice now and then and few bad days here and there. You figure it’s just normal aging. But you go to your doctor anyway who runs some tests. You’re told it’s cancer. A really, really bad type of cancer that’s been growing for a long time and is only now starting to make you feel sick. Since you feel basically OK, you don’t believe the diagnosis. You want to ignore the whole situation, even when you’re told that if you wait until you feel sick it will be too late. You have to get treatment now or face catastrophic health changes. Your doctor also tells you that 97 to 98 percent of oncologists all agree that you’ve got cancer and you need immediate treatment. Being careful, you get a second opinion, and a third. And then a fourth from the hospital with the best reputation in your area. They all agree. Finally, you find someone who tells you what you want to hear: don’t worry, it’s just normal aging; ignore all those other doctors, they’re just trying to sell you the treatments they provide.
What are you going to do? Especially given how I set it up, it’s pretty clear almost everyone would seek the recommended treatment after working through their fear (maybe rage, or even despair) and conquering the difficult challenge of making decisions based on an assessment of risk far in the future.
And this brings me to the obvious question: Why is it any different for human-caused global climate change? And to a non-obvious one: How should we act towards someone denying a cancer-diagnosis and should we treat someone denying anthropogenic climate change any differently?
For those denying either a cancer diagnosis or anthropogenic climate change the psychological start is recognizing that logic and data will fail; you can’t smash emotions with reason. For each, there are powerful emotional reasons not to believe the bad news. For example, consider the anxieties resulting from acting on perceived uncertainty (“it’s not an ABSOLUTE certainty, is it?”); the mistrust of authorities built into how we now relate to experts; the all-too-human tendency to...
Link
Todd Essig?? Really? Who's he? Oh, we see, he "contributes" to Forbes, a publication sort of like a newspaper. His beat is appropriately "mental health".
Cedric only believes written stuff supporting his "settled" beliefs. All the rest is garbage. Sort of like the news media accounts of shit like Pearl Harbor, the holocaust, financial crashes and the local police blotter.
Hopefully we can get NASA to verify all the news. Oh wait. NASA is a government agency. On the other hand, no government agency would lie to us especially about important stuff like smuggling guns to Mexican drug cartels or forcing us to buy carbon credits from them.
Cedric would do well to consult his nearest proctologist to locate his head.
Yes, Clark Kent, aside from establishing that you don't know anything about global warming, we now know there are lots and lots of other stuff you don't know.
That was already quite apparent. We could fill libraries with things you don't know. (smirk, shrug, wink, giggle, guffaw, ROFL)
NASA was the only research group you ever heard of, and only because they once landed some men on the moon. So at some point in the past 30 years, they went from the transportation sector to the education sector, and after blowing up two space shuttles and numerous other rockets, it seems they misplaced their identity.
It's sort of, like, the Department of Transportation sidelining into the business of environmental impact studies merely because they had to do a few of those along the way. Not exactly their speciality.
And you ignore WUWT and the open letter, dismissing it as a lowly "blog" and missing the bigger picture because you refuse to see it. Crimestop has blinded you.
Scientists did research (with public money)
Said scientists reached startling conclusions
Said conclusions implied that we must spend enormous amounts of public money, and forego production to fix a grave problem
Said conclusions are based on data which, by law, should be openly available
Said data are not openly available
Said scientists are breaking the law by willfully refusing to provide said data, and have conspired amongst themselves to thwart the lawful pursuit of said data.
Which brings us to the ultimate question: why?
Are they sloppy, incompetent, or lying? Any of those answers, Calvin, leaves us with little faith in their science, and it does not compel us to spend trillions of dollars to build a scaffold to hold up the falling sky at their command.
They might be right about the sky falling, but by the same accident by which a broken clock is right twice a day.
While your Googling and linking skills are no doubt exceptional (qualifying you for some minimum wage job somewhere) it ignores the central fact of Allen's post....
You are oblivious to the real politik of global warming science.
You wave away with your hands that it is a business motivated by money and fame and politics.
A group of obscure academics whose importance to science equalled that of Ethnic Studies wanted a way to get research money coming their way. Studying climate wasn't blowing the wind up anyone's skirt, so they invented a discovery to gain people's attention.
You are gazing, young Cedric, at the modern equivalent of Piltdown Man
(which I'm sure you must now Google)
Allen and I know a fake when we see it just like some experts knew the Getty Kouros was a fake at first glance (more Googling for you).
Respected and diligent scientists performed all sorts of expensive scientific tests confirming the authentic nature of the Kouros, yet it was ultimately proved a complete fake. To the trained eye, it just didn't look right: The fingernails, the patina, the condition. Basic human intuition knew what carbon dating did not.
We know the science of AGW is bad because of its foul odor. We can follow the money. We can follow the politics. We can follow the lost data, unfulfilled FOI requests, and plots to destroy information and cover tracks. We can see who wins and who loses. We can see who gets the research grants and subsidies.
You have no intuition to identify fraud and you have no knowledge to understand science.
Worthless.
Cedric only believes written stuff supporting his "settled" beliefs.
Why do you lie?
I accept the conclusions of NASA and all the scientific communities on the planet.
I don't pick and choose.
How many times must I say it before it sinks in?
Hopefully we can get NASA to verify all the news.
Never mentioned news.
Not once.
I'm talking about science.
Oh wait. NASA is a government agency. On the other hand, no government agency would lie to us...
Conspiracies abound.
If you suspect NASA of some fiendish plan then there are loads of other scientific communities that have nothing to do with NASA.
You can go to any one of them for a second opinion.
Yet they all tell you the same thing.
Just like the cancer specialists.
...you don't know anything about global warming, we now know there are lots and lots of other stuff you don't know.
Yes, I've told you that repeatedly.
I freely and cheerfully admit it.
I also know nothing about cancer.
We could fill libraries with things you don't know.
Could not the same be said of anybody? It's certainly true of me.
NASA was the only research group you ever heard of...
Why do you lie?
I accept the conclusions of NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. There are no exceptions. How many times must I repeat this before you are able to understand it?
So at some point in the past 30 years, they went from the transportation sector to the education sector, and after blowing up two space shuttles and numerous other rockets, it seems they misplaced their identity.
So, you think NASA was secretly taken over by "the leftists" only in the last 30 years?
So the conspiracy is only thirty years old?
Science history is not your friend.
Not exactly their speciality.
Climatology is a speciality of NASA. They are world leaders. It helps that they have a vast array of satellites and mainframe computers and thousands of scientists.
And you ignore WUWT and the open letter, dismissing it as a lowly "blog"...
Yes. I'm smart that way.
I don't need to scrape the bottom of the barrel and go shopping around blogs to prop up my preconceptions.
I go straight to the mainstream.
I have NASA and every scientific community on the planet to help me out.
You don't. You are forced to rely on blogs. Every single time.
Are they sloppy, incompetent, or lying?
How do you know that NASA and every single scientific community on the planet are all sloppy, incompetent and lying and have been that way for at least thirty years without anybody noticing?
You are oblivious to the real politik of global warming science.
Sure.
"The leftists" are everywhere.
The conspiracy goes deep. Very deep.
A group of obscure academics...
You mean NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?
All of them? Really?
Wow.
Studying climate wasn't blowing the wind up anyone's skirt, so they invented a discovery to gain people's attention.
Who's in charge of this dastardly plot? Any specifics?
How did "they" do it?
You are gazing, young Cedric, at the modern equivalent of Piltdown Man
It's amazing how rationalisations for conspiracy theories never change.
That would be Claim CC001
Allen and I know a fake when we see it...
The trick is not to just wave your hands and assure people you are correct. A real skeptic would share his methodology and demonstrate how it is consistantly reliable.
You "instinctively" somehow know a fake is a fake?
Sure, that sounds very sciency.
Not.
We know the science of AGW is bad because of its foul odor.
Wow. Just wow.
We can follow the money.
Been there. Done that. Claim CA321.1
We can follow the politics. We can follow the lost data, unfulfilled FOI requests, and plots to destroy information and cover tracks.
Yet you can't pick up the phone and call the police.
Curious.
We can see who gets the research grants and subsidies.
Been there. Done that. Claim CA320.
You have no intuition to identify fraud...
I never use "intuition" to identify fraud. Neither does the court system. Too subjective. I rely only on hard evidence. Hard evidence vetted by NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
... and you have no knowledge to understand science.
NASA understands the science.
Just like oncologists understand cancer.
(shrug)
"Why do you lie?
I accept the conclusions of NASA and all the scientific communities on the planet.
I don't pick and choose."
Cedric, you are the liar here by stating "all the scientific communities on the planet". You attempt to justify the lie by defining scientists who question Mann, Hansen, Jones and the other warmista religionist government grant whores as "not scientists". You then trot out a news magazine article by a nobody "mental health reporter" and waste bandwidth and violate copyrights by cutting and pasting his inanities. Since you have descended to personal attacks I would suggest that you visit Dr Hansen's proctologist who called an notified us that he has located not only your brain but your lips as well.
Cedric, you are the liar here by stating "all the scientific communities on the planet".
Nope.
It's absolutely true.
Google it. It will take you thirty seconds, tops.
There's no need to take my word for it. In fact, I would be disappointed if you did.
...defining scientists who question Mann, Hansen, Jones and the other warmista religionist government grant whores as "not scientists".
Ah, a senior moment.
Nope.
Never said it.
My words are in this very thread as plain as day. Read them a little more carefully.
Focus.
Feel free to quote them in detail.
You then trot out a news magazine article...
Yes I did. What's your problem?
The psychologist made a very good analogy. I'm happy to get analogies from newspapers if they are apt.
I wouldn't get my climate science that way but analogies are ok.
Since you have descended to personal attacks...
Huh?
You clearly have not been following the conversation.
You see, I get my science information about climate change from NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. No exceptions.
I don't selectively tune any of them out. I am happy to take them all and compare them to each other.
I am swayed by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. That goes for any scientific topic.
On the other hand, Allen gets his science information from blogs and relies on his "instincts".
That's how he ends up with global leftist conspiracy theories and sheep noises.
It's dumb.
Dumb and dangerous.
Getting your cancer information from blogs and relying on "instinct" is dumb and dangerous too.
Cedric,
You believe that by repeating the same old catechisms ad nauseam with an avalanche of linked and pasted bullshit that you will succeed in making us accept the premise of your religious dogmas.
Get a grip and proceed to your nearest Taco Cabana with that guitar and ask them to provide a pitcher of margaritas for an hour of your strummings and ravings.
Good luck.
You believe...
Nope.
Never mentioned belief.
Science is not a religion.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet are not cults.
No "belief" is necessary.
Everything I say is independently verifiable.
...repeating the same old catechisms...
Nope.
Never mentioned any catechisms.
Science is not a religion.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet are not filled with high priests.
No "catechisms" are necessary.
Everything I say is independently verifiable.
...us accept the premise of your religious dogmas.
Nope.
Never mentioned any dogmas.
Science is not a religion.
NASA and every single scientific community are not secretly somehow religious.
No "religious dogmas" are necessary.
Everything I say is independently verifiable.
In your previous post you said...
Cedric, you are the liar here by stating "all the scientific communities on the planet".
I replied that what I said is absolutely true.
Again, I invite you to google it. There's no need to take my word for any of it.
Google it.
You have nothing to lose but your ignorance.
Don't just run away from your own words. That would be very predictable and sad.
I get my science information about climate change from NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
No exceptions.
I don't selectively tune any of them out. I am happy to take them all and compare them to each other.
I am swayed by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
That goes for any scientific topic.
I approach the scientific issue of climate change with the same seriousness as I would the threat of cancer.
I only go to the very best.
All of them.
I don't get my science information from blogs and newspapers.
My standards are quite different from yours.
My standards are much, much better.
A hypothesis is a scientific term for a BELIEF.
Why do you lie?
Why is fact-checking such an alien concept to you?
Look up the word "hypothesis".
Google is not your friend.
Belief?
Nope.
Nothing of the sort.
NOTHING you say is verifiable because you haven't SAID anything.
Yes, I have. I've said it very clearly.
NASA.
I get my science information from NASA.
I get my science information about climate change from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
How many time do I have to spell it out to you before it sinks in?
...you've only said Allen is being "led by the nose" by inferior sources of information but you are "better than that" because you go to superior sources.
Yes.
Thank you. Finally.
My sources of information are indeed superior.
I never go to blogs for information on climate science.
I use NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
That's as about as superior as it gets.
There is no better resource.
You know nothing about global warming.
Ah, another senior moment.
How many time must I go through this for your benefit?
I.
Know.
Nothing.
About.
Global.
Warming.
I freely admit it. It's perfectly true. I know as much about global warming as I do about cancer.
You just believe - yes, BELIEVE - something about it.
Don't be so dense.
I accept the conclusions of NASA and every scientific community on the planet on the subject of climate change.
There no "belief" about it.
Science does not work the same as religion.
You have maintained a hypothesis...
No. I have no hypothesis.
I have no theory.
That is the province of the scientific community.
Nothing to do with me at all.
As a non-scientist, I just look at the conclusions of all the scientific communities on the planet and compare them.
I am swayed by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
The orchid doesn't feign knowledge...
I already explained this to you.
There's tonnes of stuff I don't know. Lots of stuff.
I freely admit it.
Yet when I want to find out about some scientific topic I will go to the best. The very best.
I would do the same with cancer.
My methodology is sound and fair and reasonable.
I don't need kooky global conspiracy theories.
Crankdom, no matter what the subject, has no appeal to me.
Cedric,
I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.
When were you accepted into the intellectual pygmies association; or are you simply an honorary member?
Cedric,
You know we love you, man. But it's over.
Good game, well played.
Just out of curiosity. What would happen to the global cooling/global warming/climate change scientists funding if they said, "Oops, we were wrong, man is not the primary driver of climate cooling/warming/change"? My bet, they're all out of jobs. Notice how all of the coolists/warmists/changists are funded by government or other groups that would "benefit" from the implementations to "fix" the problem. Just like any other study, be wary of who is financing it.
Just out of curiosity. What would happen to the cancer scientists funding if they said, "Oops, we were wrong, cigarettes are not the primary cause of lung cancer"? My bet, they're all out of jobs. Notice how all of the cancer researchers are funded by government or other groups that would "benefit" from the implementations to "fix" the problem. Just like any other study, be wary of who is financing it.
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.
Wow! There is some serious name-calling here!
Having read the open letter in question (by Willis Eschenbach - you could at least try to get his name right), as well as a few other publications, I am inclined to come down on the side of those who doubt the findings of the IPCC.
Dr. Jones, having published the scarey paper, should have at least been willing and able to hand over the dataset he based his research upon. Instead, he responded with: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Erm, that is the idea of peer-review; if nothing wrong is found in it, it stands proud, even if it stands alone. If, however, you fear that something may be found wrong with it, then you (as a scientist) should be seriously reviewing your own work.
However, the whole of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia seems to view this as a "cause" rather than research. Sounds more like a religion to me than proper scientific study. The unbelievers are dismissed as "sceptics", as if that is something wrong in a scientist - surely all scientists should be sceptics?
With the mind-set of the publishers known, should not their conclusions be approached with a certain amount of trepidation?
RSP
You know we love you, man. But it's over.
We've been here before.
It's over. Stick a fork in it. It's done.
December 5, 2009
The thing I'm not going to write about any more is dead ! !
February 1, 2010
Let us all be thankful that Global Warming ended so abruptly, without our government having to take any extreme measures, or money, or taxes.
February 12, 2010
It wasn't true then and it's not true now. Step away from the blogs.
Embrace primary sources of information like you are supposed to.
Follow the CEI lawsuit.
November 29, 2009
Whatever happened to that lawsuit?
Did you follow it?
(...crickets chirping...)
Once upon a time, a smart man once said..."if you only show the peaks and not the valleys, the world looks like a very hot place."
Yet does not the opposite hold true? Or is it only a one way street?
"...if you only show the valleys and not the peaks, the world looks like a very cold place..."
Now, you'd never make a basic statistical error of reasoning and do that now, would you?
Before you answer, I think you should look at this:
Nebraska is colder than it's been since 1973. Florida, where the orange groves are freezing, is the coldest it's been since 1980. Scotland, since 1995. Amsterdam, since 1993. Hamburg, Germany, since 1963. Siberia, since 2001. Beijing is the coldest it's been since 1970.
Hmm.
Statistics are not your friends.
Having read the open letter in question as well as a few other publication...
You mean blogs?
"Publications" makes it sound good but...
...I am inclined to come down on the side of those who doubt the findings of the IPCC.
You mean NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?
Dr. Jones, having published the scarey paper, should have at least been willing and able to hand over the dataset he based his research upon.
Says who?
A blog?
Oh.
However, the whole of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia seems to view this as a "cause" rather than research.
Says who? A blog perhaps?
The unbelievers are dismissed...
Science is not about belief.
Science does not work the same as a religion.
No belief is necessary.
With the mind-set of the publishers known...
What publishers?
How do you know their mindset?
Either you genuinely care about peer-reviewed research and the work it represents or not.
Make up your mind.
Actually, a hypothesis is not a belief:
Oxford English Dictionary:
noun (plural hypotheses /-ˌsēz/)
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
And I thought the valleys and peaks thing was the other way round...? Where I come from, the peaks always look a lot colder than the valley.
As for statistics... research has show that 80% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.
RSP
Cedric, you are beginning to help me understand the frustration of the others on this post...
Please read my post a bit more carefully, and you will find many of your questions answered therein. (And some of your questions even confirm my statements.)
As for the publications, I will prepare a list, but my internet connection is horrendously slow at the moment, so it could take some time.
It is a known fact that any scientist who publishes has to expect that his research will be analysed in depth by others of similar standing - this is called peer-review, and no paper should be published without it.
The released e-mails from the IPCC show that these academics do refer to their studies as "the cause". Read them; they are available on many other sites - many are included in the letter in question (er, I take it you have read that letter?). They also dismiss those scientists who question their findings as "unbelievers" and "sceptics".
The mind-set of the publishers (i.e. the academics of the University of East Anglia involved in the Climate Research Unit and the IPCC) is known through their own publications, be they the papers they have published, the e-mails that have been released (where they openly talk about removing items from FOI access and of trashing the reputations of scientists who publish conflicting reasearch).
Finally, as a scoffer of blogs and bloggers, why are you taking part in this blog?
RSP
BTW, I do believe in peer-review of research, which is why I am in despair at the reluctance of Mr. Jones to submit his for such review, yet expect entire governments to leap to its bidding.
RSP
Actually, a hypothesis is not a belief...
So you admit to being a leftist and part of the global conspiracy?
;)
You'll be trying to tell us that the planet is warming next!
It is a known fact that any scientist who publishes has to expect that his research will be analysed in depth by others of similar standing - this is called peer-review, and no paper should be published without it.
What papers have been published in the peer-reviewed process that...have not been peer-reviewed?
Name them.
The released e-mails...
Either you are going to pay attention to isolated quotes from emails on the internet...or you are going to pay attention to peer-review.
The mind-set of the publishers...
I don't care if they are Nazi mime artists.
Their "mindset" is neither here nor there.
Only the work matters.
Do you have evidence of fraud?
Call the police.
Do you have evidence that a peer-reviewed paper was tampered with or refused a grant or trashed outside the bounds of peer-review?
Name the paper.
Call the journal responsible.
I do believe in peer-review of research, which is why I am in despair at the reluctance of Mr. Jones to submit his for such review...
Again, what peer-reviewed paper (by Jones or anybody else) was not subject to peer-review?
Name it.
I am not saying that the planet is warming or the planet is not warming; I am not saying that there is significant climate change or that there is none; I am not saying that we are all doomed or that those who do say that are scare-mongering. What I am saying is that there has to be free and open discussion about it, with proper, detailed - and sceptical - research about it. The information of such a vast scale is still sketchy; we must not jump to conclusions - however, there are an awful lot of people whose income can be affected by jumping to a conclusion, either way. Of those, we do have to be wary.
Of the papers submitted by the CRU of the UEA, an astonishing number were NOT peer-reviewed.
Of the e-mails quoted in the letter, the full e-mails (with irritating ">>>>" and similar) are also available elsewhere. The letter-writer (Willis Eschenbach - WE) has not selectively quoting from them - they are the full textual content (some of which is highlighted by WE); he openly admits to editing out the superfluous signage.
You are right - only the work matters. That work has to be open to public scrutiny; when that is denied, then suspicions have to be raised. It was denied; hence the open letter. Have you read that open letter?
Cedric, I am not sure what planet you are on at the moment, but until you come back down to Earth, I think it is pointless continuing any discussions with you.
RSP
p.s. just getting this comment up has taken my connection about 5 minutes - finding those promised publications can wait until I get a faster connection.
(Hmm, My previous post vanished. Apologies if this is a paraphrased re-post)
I am not saying that the planet is warming or the planet is not warming…
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet do not share your position.
I am not saying that there is significant climate change or that there is none…
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet do not share your position.
I am not saying that we are all doomed or that those who do say that are scare-mongering.
Do you honestly think that NASA and every single scientific community are saying that we are all doomed or that they are scare-mongering somehow?
What I am saying is that there has to be free and open discussion about it, with proper, detailed - and sceptical - research about it.
Do you think that there has not been free and open discussion, complete with proper, detailed, skeptical research by NASA and every single scientific community on the planet?
The information of such a vast scale is still sketchy…
Who says?
…however, there are an awful lot of people whose income can be affected by jumping to a conclusion, either way. Of those, we do have to be wary.
How would an honest skeptic overcome such an impasse without sounding like a conspiracy theorist?
Of the papers submitted by the CRU of the UEA, an astonishing number were NOT peer-reviewed.
If that's true, then feel free to ignore them.
I would.
Maintain your high standards and focus on the vast body of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Of the e-mails quoted in…
Either you are going to pay attention to isolated quotes from emails on the internet...or you are going to pay attention to peer-review.
That work has to be open to public scrutiny…
The “public” has not the time nor the skill sets to scrutinize the science. If you want work to be scrutinized then you submit it to the process of peer-review. The “peer” part is vitally important.
There are no shortcuts.
Cedric, I am not sure what planet you are on at the moment…
I’m on the same planet that is inhabited by NASA and every single scientific community.
I pay attention to all of the vast body of scientific, peer-reviewed literature on all scientific topics-not just climatology.
As promised, here is a list of some of the publications that make interesting reading:
Index on Censorship
The Spectator
Financial Post
Think Progress
American Thinker
And some more specific points:
Baltimore Sun – Nitrogen: the new pollutant.
Carnegie Institute: According to a new study ... war is indeed good for something - the environment...
The list is not exhaustive, as my patience with this blasted connection is wearing thin, but I am sure that you could do your own searching, much of which might involve looking at publications in direct opposition to your ideas; but it is a good thing to have them shaken up every so often.
RSP
As promised, here is a list of some of the publications...
I appreciate you digging them up.
Yet, to be fair, they are hardly "publications".
As I suspected, we're really talking about blogs (and newspapers) here. "Publications" sounds very glamorous but..
This is not someone heavily invested in the peer-review process.
All climate denier talking points rely upon middlemen.
Middlemen who put themselves between the public and the scientific community that does the work with their own hands.
These middlemen helpfully "interpret" what the scientists are trying to tell the public.
I don't need middle men.
I go to NASA and the scientific communities directly.
Eliminate the blogs and newspaper articles and there is nothing much else for the climate deniers to use.
Every time Allen wants to cut-and-paste a story on climate change, it ALWAYS goes back to some other blog or newspaper. It ALWAYS goes back to the middlemen and their spin.
Never primary sources.
It's the same deal with HIV deniers. They rely upon the same dodgy information resources. So it goes with creationists and anti-vaxxers and several others. Always the fringe, never the mainstream.
Mainstream science and the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed research covering many decades and all the Earth Sciences are off-limits to you for no good reason.
A global scientific conspiracy is physically impossible. It doesn't work.
"All climate denier talking points rely upon middlemen.
Middlemen who put themselves between the public and the scientific community that does the work with their own hands.
These middlemen helpfully "interpret" what the scientists are trying to tell the public.
I don't need middle men.
I go to NASA and the scientific communities directly.
Eliminate the blogs and newspaper articles and there is nothing much else for the climate deniers to use.
Every time Allen wants to cut-and-paste a story on climate change, it ALWAYS goes back to some other blog or newspaper. It ALWAYS goes back to the middlemen and their spin.
Never primary sources."
Cedric,
I am truly jealous of your contacts within the scientific community. I have to rely upon the publications that these people... er, publish, be they in "blogs" you so revile, or on-line publication (such as Scientific American, plus a load of others I have yet to find again). I am afraid I have not yet found direct access to their papers, though it may be there.
Even if I had access to the raw data, it would mean very little to me, as I would have no idea how to interpret it - give me a radar picture, and I could tell you more than you could guess, but banks of raw numbers will probably mean nothing to me. As a result, I have to depend upon others interpreting the data, and issuing the results in terms more meaningful to a layman (i.e. me).
I am not a climate denier, as you seem to imply, in your rather rabid fashion. However, I am a bit suspicious of scientists refusing other scientists access to data upon which they have published (oh, that word again...!) radical results, branding them dismissively as "sceptics", as if that is a bad thing for scientists to be.
Newton published his theories, and others spent some 200 years testing them, never to find a flaw. None of these testers were ever debunked as bad scientists (though some may have been) because they were sceptical. However, a flaw was eventually found - which does not debunk Newton; similarly for Einstein - even his work is being found faulty - but only as more information is thrown into the equations. The warmists are not being so open about their work; the "sceptics" (a.k.a. "the bad guys") are.
RSP
p.s. Cedric, have you read that open letter yet?
RSP
I am truly jealous of your contacts within the scientific community.
I have no contacts.
The scientific conclusions of NASA and all scientific communities are freely available to all.
I have to rely upon the publications that these people... er, publish, be they in "blogs" you so revile…
Getting your science information from blogs or newspapers is a very, very bad idea.
If you want to know about science then you must use scientific resources such as NASA and all the rest.
Only the work counts.
…such as Scientific American…
Scientific American is not at odds with NASA and all the scientific communities on the planet.
Even if I had access to the raw data, it would mean very little to me, as I would have no idea how to interpret it (…) As a result, I have to depend upon others interpreting the data, and issuing the results in terms more meaningful to a layman (i.e. me).
Then don’t use blogs or newspapers.
Don’t scrape the bottom of the barrel.
The scientific communities that do the work themselves are more than willing to let you know about their work.
However, I am a bit suspicious of scientists refusing other scientists access to data…
And you found out about this shocking state of affairs from…blogs and newspapers?
(sigh)
So much for skepticism.
If you embrace the mainstream, you will find that this talking point withers away.
Newton published his theories, and others spent some 200 years testing them…
Other scientists. Not some semi-retired refrigerator repairman with a blog.
None of these testers were ever debunked as bad scientists (though some may have been) because they were sceptical.
NASA and all the scientific communities on the planet have not forgotten the value of skepticism in the scientific process.
Honest.
The warmists are not being so open about their work…
By “warmists”, you mean NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, right?
No, that won’t do.
There is no global scientific conspiracy. Such a thing is physically impossible.
Global conspiracies are a contradiction in terms.
NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.
You have yet to answer my question, Cedric, the only real question I have asked you (the others being rhetorical): have you read that open letter yet?
I think it is important to know the answer to this, as you are quite vehement in your condemnation of it, and, so it would seem, every other publication that questions the results of research by the CRU of the UEA, under the auspices of the IPCC.
The person who wrote it is a known and respected scientist, as are others who are also contributing to that site - okay, so they are despicable "bloggers", but, by taking part in this, Cedric, so are you.
Unlike you, I am still collecting data (albeit on the web) without making any prejudgements on any of it. I have been reading articles, papers, blogs, responses to blogs, whatever I can find with my limited resources. I have not come to any conclusions, other than that there are an awful lot of people out there who turn quite rabid if there is any suggestion that this research might be flawed. It might be; it might also be that the "deniers" (wicked, wicked people!) have their research utterly wrong. The only difference between the two is that the "deniers" are open about their research, and welcome criticism; the "warmists" are not - indeed, there is growing evidence that the "warmists" are resorting to vilification and sabotaging the careers of those who disagree with them.
This is the argument I am pursuing, here, Cedric. I am not saying who is right; as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on that (though I am leaning toward the "deniers" side, mainly because they are so open with their data). What does concern me is how a certain section of the scientific community DOES seem to have converted their research into a belief - those who believe in AGW do appear to have an air of religious fervour about them.
When I have written comments on other sites, questioning the arguments of the "deniers", I get responses along the line of, "Good point, however, have you seen..." and they will point me to specific sites, or re-issue information that they have collected (and if it has been edited in any way, they tell me, and direct me to its source so that I may check).
You, other than saying NASA, NASA, NASA, over and over again, are not doing that. You are saying "...every other scientific community on the planet..." (is CERN involved in this, too!? I think you have to modify your claims a little); but many "deniers" are also part of these scientific communnites - or does their opinion not count? Oh, yes - I forgot, they are deniers, therefore wrong. Despite my slow connection, I have looked at the NASA site (which, like the BBC's, will no doubt have a lot more there than I can see at the moment) and cannot find anything to support your mantra about them being pro-AGW. It is a well-respected organisation dedicated to space exploration; it is not really involved in general research, other than that required for space exploration. However, one side effect is that it can, and does, gather data in a wide range of subjects, for others to analyse. I cannot find anywhere on the site saying AGW is confirmed (though I haven't read all the blogs on there).
Whoa, there! Did I say there are blogs there? And you are reading them? And this? Not only reading, but contributing - to a blog!? You despicable, despicable person! Go outside and give yourself forty lashes!
Open you mind a little, Cedric. Read the letter; research its sources, if you must, but at least read the letter.
Then go here, and see some academics openly discussing trashing the career of one with whom they are at odds: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=402. And if you trawl through the site, you will see them calling it "the cause", not "the research".
RSP
Apologies for the delay in replying. I had submitted a reply, but it seems to have been lost in the aethernet. Maybe it was too long.
You still have not answered my question, Cedric (the only real question; the others were rhetorical); have you read the open letter yet?
You keep thrusting the mantra of NASA, NASA, NASA, at us, as if this is the solution to all the world’s woes. I have looked on the NASA site (which may be like the BBC’s, and a lot bigger than it looks), and found this:
“NASA conducts its work in three principal organizations, called mission directorates:
• Aeronautics: pioneers and proves new flight technologies that improve our ability to explore and which have practical applications on Earth.
• Human Exploration and Operations: focuses on International Space Station operations and human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
• Science: explores the Earth, solar system and universe beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.”
I haven’t (yet) been able to find anything on Global Warming, for or against, though I have yet to read any blogs (despicable, despicable things!). Indeed, my own reading of the mission directorates are that NASA is only engaged in furthering the advancement of science in space. Almost as a side-effect, there will be other information gained by NASA that they are not interested in, per se (such as the weather – I mean, why worry about whether the sun is shining outside or not, when you are looking into space!). Other people take this information (or, probably more correctly, have used the services NASA offers to gain this information – i.e. contributed to sending a satellite up), and then use the data to further their own studies.
You have also stated: “Scientific American is not at odds with NASA and all the scientific communities on the planet.”
You will probably be right, here. Why would they be? Unless you are talking about the Anthropogenic Global Warming story; if so, can you verify “… all the scientific communities on the planet.” support the AGW theory (which is your implication, to be reiterated later as “fact”)?
“By “warmists”, you mean NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, right?”
Er, no. I have yet to find anything on the NASA site that says they are “warmist” or not, to tell the truth. Again: “every single scientific community on the planet”! Are those with their heads buried deep underground in CERN putting their tuppence-worth in, too? Are they bothered? So, what about those scientific communities that question the AGW theory? Ah, but, despite their lists of degrees and doctorates, it would seem that they are not real scientists; no, far worse – far, far worse – they are sceptics!
(MORE)
RSP
(CONTINUED)
As for referring to publications, I am afraid that is all I can do; someone collects the data, collates it, and lets others know of the results… How? By publication! Ah, but now we want to check the background, so we need the data… How? It is published! (Let’s face it, no-one is going to give you the key to the lab and say, “It’s all in there. Help yourself,” which seems to be the only alternative to publication.)
Why you should scorn me for being so base as to read others peoples’ works, views, and reviews puzzles me. How else am I to learn?
Have a look at these sites (have no idea how to create “links”): http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=402 which is alarming in that they are discussing the destruction of another’s reputation (and, by implication, his examiners), rather than his arguments.
http://www.collegiateclimatecollab.com/dispelling-the-climate-change-is-a-myth-myth/ which is an argument in support of global warming.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2010/12/evidence-of-fraud-by-phil-jones-and-his.html which is NOT an argument AGAINST global warming, but questioning the motives of those who are for it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html. an amusing article we should all take note of.
The links you have provided seem to be mainly for videos, for which my present connection is ill-suited, though it is interesting to note that in the supporting text of one, the deniers, though unknown, are described as “right wingers”. How on Earth was that conclusion reached? It was already admitted that they were not known! What has the political affiliation of a scientist to do with research? Unless, of course, you feel that there should be a link… which is not a very scientific precept to have of science. How about: “every change in a system will result in some form of change of that system”? Cannot find fault that statement (he is “a physics major at uni”). Moving onto another site: the denialist blog (sic) (my, but I didn’t think you put much credence in blogs, Cedric). Suddenly, the critics of the CRU have now become “denialists”. Another huge leap of judgement; these “cranks” who are in “denial” are fellow scientists merely wanting to seek verification of the published research: any published theory has to be open for such perusal. Said perusal cannot take place without the original data – it is this that is being denied the “deniers” (we could go round in circles, here!), and it is this that the critics (the “denialists”, the “cranks”, the “bad guys”) find suspicious, as do I.
“Our definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the "overvalued idea".”
Will this definition alter should the science of AGW be proven wrong?
One (TalkOrigin) is interesting – and it actually highlights the basis of my arguments – just because the consensus have a belief (Piltdown Man), does not make that a fact, and even a scientist may make the facts fit their preconceived ideas (as Freud did).
And to repeat my question: have you read the open letter, yet, Cedric?
RSP
(CONTINUED)
As for referring to publications, I am afraid that is all I can do; someone collects the data, collates it, and lets others know of the results… How? By publication! Ah, but now we want to check the background, so we need the data… How? It is published! (Let’s face it, no-one is going to give you the key to the lab and say, “It’s all in there. Help yourself,” which seems to be the only alternative to publication.)
Why you should scorn me for being so base as to read others peoples’ works, views, and reviews puzzles me. How else am I to learn?
Have a look at these sites (have no idea how to create “links”): http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=402 which is alarming in that they are discussing the destruction of another’s reputation (and, by implication, his examiners), rather than his arguments.
http://www.collegiateclimatecollab.com/dispelling-the-climate-change-is-a-myth-myth/ which is an argument in support of global warming.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2010/12/evidence-of-fraud-by-phil-jones-and-his.html which is NOT an argument AGAINST global warming, but questioning the motives of those who are for it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html. an amusing article we should all take note of.
The links you have provided seem to be mainly for videos, for which my present connection is ill-suited, though it is interesting to note that in the supporting text of one, the deniers, though unknown, are described as “right wingers”. How on Earth was that conclusion reached? It was already admitted that they were not known! What has the political affiliation of a scientist to do with research? Unless, of course, you feel that there should be a link… which not a very scientific precept to have of science. How about: “every change in a system will result in some form of change of that system”? Cannot find fault that statement (he is “a physics major at uni”). Moving onto another site: the denialist blog (sic) (my, but I didn’t think you put much credence in blogs, Cedric). Suddenly, the critics of the CRU have now become “denialists”. Another huge leap of judgement; these “cranks” who are in “denial” are fellow scientists merely wanting to seek verification of the published research: any published theory has to be open for such perusal. Said perusal cannot take place without the original data – it is this that is being denied the “deniers” (we could go round in circles, here!), and it is this that the critics (the “denialists”, the “cranks”, the “bad guys”) find suspicious, as do I.
“Our definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the "overvalued idea".”
Will this definition alter should the science of AGW be proven wrong?
One (TalkOrigin) is interesting – and it actually highlights the basis of my arguments – just because the consensus have a belief (Piltdown Man), does not make that a fact, and even a scientist may make the facts fit their preconceived ideas (as Freud did).
And to repeat my question: have you read the open letter, yet, Cedric?
RSP
(CONTINUED) - this is the third attempt to post this - it keeps disappearing after posting! Mr Sepulchre, if this post is causing bother, please let me know and I will cease.
As for referring to publications, I am afraid that is all I can do; someone collects the data, collates it, and lets others know of the results… How? By publication! Ah, but now we want to check the background, so we need the data… How? It is published! (Let’s face it, no-one is going to give you the key to the lab and say, “It’s all in there. Help yourself,” which seems to be the only alternative to publication.)
Why you should scorn me for being so base as to read others peoples’ works, views, and reviews puzzles me. How else am I to learn?
Have a look at these sites (have no idea how to create “links”): http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=402 which is alarming in that they are discussing the destruction of another’s reputation (and, by implication, his examiners), rather than his arguments.
http://www.collegiateclimatecollab.com/dispelling-the-climate-change-is-a-myth-myth/ which is an argument in support of global warming.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2010/12/evidence-of-fraud-by-phil-jones-and-his.html which is NOT an argument AGAINST global warming, but questioning the motives of those who are for it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html. an amusing article we should all take note of.
The links you have provided seem to be mainly for videos, for which my present connection is ill-suited, though it is interesting to note that in the supporting text of one, the deniers, though unknown, are described as “right wingers”. How on Earth was that conclusion reached? It was already admitted that they were not known! What has the political affiliation of a scientist to do with research? Unless, of course, you feel that there should be a link… which not a very scientific precept to have of science. How about: “every change in a system will result in some form of change of that system”? Cannot find fault that statement (he is “a physics major at uni”). Moving onto another site: the denialist blog (sic) (my, but I didn’t think you put much credence in blogs, Cedric). Suddenly, the critics of the CRU have now become “denialists”. Another huge leap of judgement; these “cranks” who are in “denial” are fellow scientists merely wanting to seek verification of the published research: any published theory has to be open for such perusal. Said perusal cannot take place without the original data – it is this that is being denied the “deniers” (we could go round in circles, here!), and it is this that the critics (the “denialists”, the “cranks”, the “bad guys”) find suspicious, as do I.
“Our definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the "overvalued idea".”
Will this definition alter should the science of AGW be proven wrong?
One (TalkOrigin) is interesting – and it actually highlights the basis of my arguments – just because the consensus have a belief (Piltdown Man), does not make that a fact, and even a scientist may make the facts fit their preconceived ideas (as Freud did).
And to repeat my question: have you read the open letter, yet, Cedric?
RSP
…have you read the open letter yet?
What part of “I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet” do you not understand?
What part of “I never bother with blogs” do you not understand?
You keep thrusting the mantra of NASA…
No. NASA is not a "mantra".
Science is not a religion. It has no needs of mantras. Using NASA as a science resourse is not a religious act in any way.
I haven’t (yet) been able to find anything on Global Warming, for or against, though…
NASA is a world leader in climatology. They have satellites, scientists and super computers dedicated to expanding our knowledge of the Earth’s climate and what is happening to it. That work is in collaboration with other space agencies and many different land-based projects covering all the Earth Sciences.
This work has be ongoing for many decades now.
Go to google.
Type in “NASA” and then ”climate change” and it pops right up.
…though I have yet to read any blogs (despicable, despicable things!).
Any semi-retired refrigerator repairman can set up a blog.
HIV deniers use blogs.
Anti-vaxxers use blogs.
Moon landing deniers use blogs.
Conspiracy theoriests of all stripes use blogs.
My standards are higher than that.
I am a skeptic because I actively practice skepticism in my methodology.
I only go to the best. I don’t bother with the wannabees.
You will probably be right, here. Why would [Scientific American] they be? Unless you are talking about the Anthropogenic Global Warming story…
No, that firmly includes global warming. Feel free to read all the articles from Sci Am on the subject of global warming and climate change. If you, for example, only allowed Sci Am as a trusted sources of science information then you would embrace the mainstream. The same goes for the journals “Nature” and “Science”. Please don’t take my word for this. Please assume that I am lying.
Google it.
It will take you at the most 5 minutes (though maybe longer with your bad connection.)
…if so, can you verify “… all the scientific communities on the planet.” support the AGW theory (which is your implication, to be reiterated later as “fact”)?
Yes but you should not just trust me.
That would not be genuine skepticism.
You are alreadly long familiar with a variety of scientific communities out there, correct?
The National Academy of Sciences? The AAAS. The Royal Society, the RMET, the CSIRO, the British Antarctic Survey, The American Meteorological Society etc.
There is a massive variety of scientific communities out there covering all the Earth Sciences.
Feel free to pick your own personal top ten.
Don’t let me influence you in any way.
Now go to the respective official websites of your top ten favourite scientific communities and see what they have to say on the subject of global warming and climate change.
Read their own words without the middlemen from the blogosphere.
You will quickly find that the blogs and the newspapers have not been telling you the real story.
So, what about those scientific communities that question the AGW theory?
All scientists “question” everything. It’s part of their job.
Science is not the same as a religion.
AGW has been questioned for decades and as the answers rolled in due to dedicated, hard work the global scientific consensus was built up slowly over time. If you distrust civilian scientific communities then feel free to use military ones. Every single scientific community on the planet is now on board. There are no exceptions.
That state of affairs did not happen by magic.
It happened by science working the boring, old-fashioned way.
So, what about those scientific communities…
Name one.
There’s a lot to get through so I will try to keep things very short.
Apologies if I missed something vital.
…and, so it would seem, every other publication…
It’s not a "publication". It’s somebody’s letter on a blog. Lipstick on a pig does not make the pig look better and only confuses the pig..
The person who wrote it is a known and respected scientist, as are others who are also contributing to that site…
There are no prophets in science. Only the work counts. Their “respect’ is neither here nor there.
I have been reading articles, papers, blogs, responses to blogs, whatever I can find with my limited resources.
You are doing it wrong. You have not adopted the methodology of a skeptic or someone who is interested in the actual science.
You are shopping around for anything that sounds good to you. Not all sources of information are equal. Some are total crap. You are embracing the fringe.
…indeed, there is growing evidence that the "warmists" are resorting to (…)sabotaging the careers of those who disagree with them.
And you found out about this shocking state of affairs from…blogs and newspapers? Right?
Ah.
This is the argument I am pursuing, here, Cedric. I am not saying who is right; as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on that…
Not according to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
They are the jury.
You have embraced the fringe. If you step away from the blogs and use actual science resources then the narrative the middlemen have sold you breaks down.
What does concern me is how a certain section of the scientific community DOES seem to have converted their research into a belief - those who believe in AGW do appear to have an air of religious fervour about them.
Which “certain section” meets with your disapproval? Why single them out over all the others? All the other scientific communities on the planet support and collaborate with their work.
The "scandal" does not exist outside of the blogosphere.
Global conspiracy theories do not work. They are physically impossible to maintain.
As for referring to publications, I am afraid that is all I can do…
No, you are not looking at "publications".
You are looking at blogs. It’s not the same thing.
There is a vast body of peer-reviewed scientific literature available. If you want to find out what the conclusions the scientific communities have drawn from that body of work…then you can go to them directly.
You don’t need middlemen. Skip the blogs entirely.
Go to NASA. Go to the AAAS. Go to the Royal Society. They are all there and they all have official websites.
Why you should scorn me for being so base as to read others peoples’ works, views, and reviews puzzles me. How else am I to learn?
Because you are using agonisingly bad scholarship. Not all sources of information are equal. You are employing the same methods of inquiry as the anti-vaxxers and the HIV deniers and the moon landing deniers. You are embracing the fringe.
Have a look at these sites…
Yep, exactly. You have no quality control standards. I get my science information in a completely different manner.
“…have you read the open letter yet?
What part of “I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet” do you not understand?”
So I take it that means, “No”?
Now, how does that give you any authority to comment on it?
“What part of “I never bother with blogs” do you not understand?”
But you feel the need to write on this, almost to the point of shouting me down, picking up every slight triviality as if proof of my own guilt.
“You keep thrusting the mantra of NASA…
No. NASA is not a "mantra".”
But you do appear to have made it yours.
“I only go to the best. I don’t bother with the wannabees.” Take heart, Whited Sepulchre, I think this is praise for you. As for the list provided, so what if they do? This is a free country, isn’t it? So long as they don’t promote hatred or violence, I have no complaint. Some can be quite fun to read; some can even have useful information.
“I am a skeptic because I actively practice skepticism in my methodology.”
Good. You have joined us. I, too, am a sceptic, and I am trying to get the whole picture, even if it means reading blogs and other literature that I may not agree with. Having read a few of the e-mails from the people in the forefront of the research (see below), I a beginning to suspect something fishy is going on.
“All scientists “question” everything. It’s part of their job.” But when some scientists seek more on the work - "question it" - being done at the UEA, what they ask for is denied, and they are denounced as “denialists”. Odd.
“Science is not the same as a religion.” Yet the scientists at the UEA chat (for want of a better word) in their e-mails of furthering “the cause”; sounds like they are referring to a religion (or a belief, at any rate) to me.
RSP
So I take it that means, “No”?
Now, how does that give you any authority to comment on it?
I have not commented on it.
I'm not even interested in it.
(NASA)But you do appear to have made it yours.
Then the problem lies with your own perception. NASA is not religious in any way.
Honest.
As for the list provided, so what if they do? This is a free country, isn’t it? So long as they don’t promote hatred or violence, I have no complaint. Some can be quite fun to read; some can even have useful information.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I, too, am a sceptic, and I am trying to get the whole picture, even if it means reading blogs and other literature that I may not agree with.
No. The idea is not to label yourself a skeptic and pat yourself on the back. You must adopt a skeptical methodology in the way you go about gathering science information.
I have one.
You do not.
Having read a few of the e-mails from the people in the forefront of the research (see below), I a beginning to suspect something fishy is going on.
Bingo.
But when some scientists seek more on the work - "question it" - being done at the UEA, what they ask for is denied, and they are denounced as “denialists”. Odd.
A shocking state of affairs that was revealed to you by...blogs. It is a line that is unsupported by mainstream science.
...sounds like they are referring to a religion (or a belief, at any rate) to me.
I'm sure it does. Your demand for evidence is set at a very low bar.
I haven’t (yet) been able to find anything on Global Warming, for or against, though…
Yet now you have, thanks to me.
"...can you verify “… all the scientific communities on the planet.” support the AGW theory...
Yes indeed they do. This comes as a total surprise to you. Every single scientific community on the planet including NASA and...you had no idea.
How do you think that happened?
How did you miss it?
Even better, how do you think all those scientific communities came to agree with each other?
By magic?
So much for your standards of scholarship.
So, what about those scientific communities…
Name one. What's the hold up?
"I have not commented on it.
I'm not even interested in it."
So what on Earth inspired you to come on this blog?
To rattle some cages with pompous, arrogant prattle? To show others just how good a debater you are?
You object to the written blog, but the video blogs of YouTube are okay?
I would not like to have you reading a map in may car - that would be a guarantee to get lost! You do not even have the decency to read the post in its full context, just dragging bits out to toast over the fire of your arrogance. 200 years ago, you would have have been one of those who cluched a Bibles to their breasts, denouncing all who questioned as a witches!
Thank you, Cedric, you have now shown me exactly why no-one else is taking part in this debate. Read that letter, read those e-mails, before coming back here with your vitriol.
RSP
So what on Earth inspired you to come on this blog?
You are not getting this.
You asked me about my authority to comment on the letter.
I gave you an honest answer that you can't bring yourself to even acknowledge.
Let me make it clear to you again:
I have not commented on it.
I'm not even interested in it.
I don't get my science information from blogs.
So what on Earth inspired you to come on this blog?
I compare and contrast the way certain groups get their science information and the rationalisations they employ to justify ignoring mainstream science.
The way creationists work is the same way HIV deniers work. The way HIV deniers work is the same way anti-vaxxers work. The way anti vaxxers work is the same way the tobacco-cancer deniers work. The way the tobacco-cancer deniers work is the same way climate deniers work.
The methodology is always the same.
To rattle some cages with pompous, arrogant prattle? To show others just how good a debater you are?
No. I clearly demonstrate that you use blogs.
In direct contrast, I do not use blogs.
I don't need to.
The reason why you and I see things differently about climate change is because my methodology and scholarship is completely different from yours.
I never get my science information from blogs.
It just doesn't happen.
I have the conclusions of NASA and every single scientific community at my fingertips.
You object to the written blog, but the video blogs of YouTube are okay?
The videos are an illustration only. They are a time saver. A picture is worth a thousand words and all that. I get my science information from NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. How many time must I say it before you can bring yourself to accept it?
You do not even have the decency to read the post in its full context...
I read everything you wrote. I can't be expected to quote it all. If there's something vital you think I missed, then feel free to mention it.
Thank you, Cedric, you have now shown me exactly why no-one else is taking part in this debate.
People have taken part in this debate. Scroll up the thread. They have all been reduced to hapless assertions and name calling. I have been extremely fair. The methodology I use is simple and...it works with any scientific issue. There is no good reason not to adopt it.
The mistake they all make is to rely on blogs and newspapers. They rely on middlemen. Step away from the blogs and the climate denier talking points evaporate.
Read that letter...
You mean the one on the blog?
That letter?
Ah.
NASA is a world leader in climatology.
Yet you had no idea.
They have satellites, scientists and super computers dedicated to expanding our knowledge of the Earth’s climate and what is happening to it.
Yet you had no idea.
NASA's work is in collaboration with other space agencies and many different land-based projects covering all the Earth Sciences.
This work has be ongoing for many decades now.
That's important. It's huge.
It's the three hundred pound gorilla in the room armed with a meat axe.
Yet you had no idea.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is on board with the science of climate change.
Yet you had no idea.
It's a really hard thing to miss.
You missed it because you use bad sources of information.
If you want to be a genuine skeptic then you must walk the walk as opposed to talking the talk. Adopt a skeptical methodology. Set yourself apart from the HIV deniers and the moon landing deniers out there. Othewise you will continue to be kept in the dark and led by the nose.
Cedric,
Some more sites and papers you might be interested in (few, regrettably, can I find on-line):
Ran, L., Jiang, H., Knudsen, K.L. and Eiriksson, J. 2011. Diatom-based reconstruction of palaeoceanographic changes on the North Icelandic shelf during the last millennium. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 302: 109-119.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018210000647
Andersson, C., Risebrobakken, B., Jansen, E. and Dahl, S.O. 2003. Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Voring Plateau). Paleoceanography 18: 10.1029/2001PA000654.
Bjune, A.E., Seppa, H. and Birks, H.J.B. 2009. Quantitative summer-temperature reconstructions for the last 2000 years based on pollen-stratigraphical data from northern Fennoscandia. Journal of Paleolimnology 41: 43-56.
Grudd, H. 2008. Tornetrask tree-ring width and density AD 500-2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. Climate Dynamics: 10.1007/s00382-0358-2.
Grudd, H., Briffa, K.R., Karlen, W., Bartholin, T.S., Jones, P.D. and Kromer, B. 2002. A 7400-year tree-ring chronology in northern Swedish Lapland: natural climatic variability expressed on annual to millennial timescales. The Holocene 12: 657-665.
Jiang, H., Ren, J., Knudsen, K.L., Eiriksson, J. and Ran, L.-H. 2007. Summer sea-surface temperatures and climate events on the North Icelandic shelf through the last 3000 years. Chinese Science Bulletin 52: 789-796.
Justwan, A., Koc, N. and Jennings, A.E. 2008. Evolution of the Irminger and East Icelandic Current systems through the Holocene, revealed by diatom-based sea surface temperature reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 1571-1582.
Seppa, H. and Birks, H.J.B. 2002. Holocene climate reconstructions from the Fennoscandian tree-line area based on pollen data from Toskaljavri. Quaternary Research 57: 191-199.
Sicre, M.-A., Jacob, J., Ezat, U., Rousse, S., Kissel, C., Yiou, P., Eiriksson, J., Knudsen, K.L., Jansen, E. and Turon, J.-L. 2008. Decadal variability of sea surface temperatures off North Iceland over the last 2000 years. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 268: 137-142.
Weckstrom, J., Korhola, A., Erasto, P. and Holmstrom, L. 2006. Temperature patterns over the past eight centuries in Northern Fennoscandia inferred from sedimentary diatoms. Quaternary Research 66: 78-86.
A longer list at: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Suck the pips out of those.
RSP
“I do not use blogs.
I don't need to.
You object to the written blog, but the video blogs of YouTube are okay?
The videos are an illustration only.”
Ah, so that’s all right then! At least you are denying that the videos are blogs, yet still do not see the irony.
“The reason why you and I see things differently about climate change…” Do we? Have we discussed climate change? I thought we were discussing the scientists investigating the phenomenon, and the various shenanigans they are getting up to (which, actually, is the thread of this blog, and of the letter in question – but don’t let me bog you down with such details).
“People have taken part in this debate. Scroll up the thread.”
I have. It was the exchange that interested me. And from the responses issued, you are well-known to the others. I can understand their logic, now - I had actually joined to get them to be more convivial towards you. Now, alas, you have driven me to join their ranks.
“NASA is a world leader in climatology.
Yet you had no idea.”
No, I hadn’t. My own knowledge of NASA is through things like the space shuttle, Moon missions, and Mars exploration. Throughout my years as a meteorological observer, I sent all my reports to the likes of NOAA and the British Met Office, and received forecasts back from them.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html
I shall withdraw. You win.
RSP
RSP - welcome to the club...
Thank you, CenTex Tim (can I call you Cen? Or would you rather Mr. Tim?). Not a club I wanted to join - "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member!" (Groucho Marx - love him!) - but I had little option.
He probably is totally unable to see the irony of his anti-blog rants, either. He claims an open mind, but displays it as tighter shut than a bank-vault at the Christmas.
Hence a repeat of that link - "Win" does not necessarily mean "Right".
RSP
BTW, I have checked out a few sites of various organisations in the “scientific community”, to find that many do include Global Warming in their mission testimonies. My connection has not allowed me to go much further, but I could not help thinking, “Well, this is the organisation fishing for funds. Could it be that they have seen which way the wind blows and have set their sails accordingly?” (‘cos I am somewhat suspicious and sceptical when it concerns what people want to do with tax-payers’ money). I shall investigate further when I get to a more user-friendly connection.
RSP
Another BTW: I had a look at the NASA site Cedric so helpfully gave. It took a long time to start – a long, long… erm, long time – and what I saw was very pretty: man in a space suit, propelled about by… flames? in space? With that sort of stuff coming from an organisation like NASA, you do have to get a bit suspicious.
(And before you start, Cedric, I am aware of “poetic licence”, but this was supposed to be factual, yet starts with a most definite non-fact!)
I can hear the wail now: "But it's NASA! How can it be wrong!"
I will view the rest when I can.
RSP
Some more sites and papers you might be interested in (few, regrettably, can I find on-line):
You specifically selected these from the vast body of peer-reviewed scientific literature...how?
What was your methodology? Spell it out.
A longer list at: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Ah...Bingo. Another blog. Skip the middlemen. Don't let them "helpfully" guide you.
Otherwise you will read only what they want you to read.
Go direct to the source.
Ah, so that’s all right then! At least you are denying that the videos are blogs, yet still do not see the irony.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do we? Have we discussed climate change?
Let's take a trip down memory lane:
I am not saying that the planet is warming or the planet is not warming…
To which I replied that NASA and every single scientific community on the planet do not share your position.
I am not saying that there is significant climate change or that there is none…
To which I replied that NASA and every single scientific community on the planet do not share your position.
I am not saying that we are all doomed or that those who do say that are scare-mongering.
To which I asked you do you honestly think that NASA and every single scientific community are saying that we are all doomed or that they are scare-mongering somehow?
The information of such a vast scale is still sketchy…
To which I asked you "Who says?"
“NASA is a world leader in climatology.
Yet you had no idea.”
No, I hadn’t.
Change the way you get your science information. Before you go off half-cocked and throw yourself at the barricades of a mysterious, all-powerful yet unseen corrupt scientific consensus, find out a bit about the scientific consensus first.
(No, don't automatically reach for a blog. Lift your game. Raise you standards.)
Go to the NASA website.
Go to the Royal Society.
Go to any and all of them.
Go to the ones you are already most familiar with.
They are all worthwhile.
Use the resources of science historians and see how long climatologists have been putting the pieces together.
Before you dive headfirst into the fringe, become familiar with the work-a-day mainstream.
There are a host of accessible, plain-spoken resources out there that come from the actual scientific communities that do the work themselves. Some of them even use graphs and pictures to enliven their science and make it a tad more appealing to the general public.
...but I could not help thinking, “Well, this is the organisation fishing for funds. Could it be that they have seen which way the wind blows and have set their sails accordingly?”
Bingo.
I compare and contrast the way certain groups get their science information and the rationalisations they employ to justify ignoring mainstream science.
The way creationists work is the same way HIV deniers work. The way HIV deniers work is the same way anti-vaxxers work. The way anti vaxxers work is the same way the tobacco-cancer deniers work. The way the tobacco-cancer deniers work is the same way climate deniers work.
Conspiracy theories never go out of style.
They explain everything and nothing at the same time. The details are never forthcoming.
RSP - Just plain "Tim" is fine.
I've been mightily resisting the urge to trot out this old chestnut, but in a moment of weakness...
Never argue with a fool. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
You shout at me for viewing blogs, but yourself contribute to a blog - this one. (Ah, but that's all right, as you are merely setting the minds of the sceptics right - perhaps it your defence of the "Cause".) Oh, and you dismiss any suspicion of the video blogs of YouTube as they are, presumably, so much better blogs (oh, come on, how can you expect us to listen to anyone who views blogs in such a selectively fashion!?). Will you consider looking at the many YouTube vids that there are expressing scepticism; I rather suspect not. I have read and viewed those from both sides, and am still reviewing.
However, I suspect that only those who submit such blogs that agree with your safely secure little mind are actually the ones that should be used. Hmmm.
All I ask you to do is to read the letter and view a few of the e-mails; most of them are extremely boring, but some are quite revelatory about the authors and their "Cause".
There is belief in science - if you think about it logically (ha!), there has to be belief - "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." (Richard Feynman)
Yes, you are right, Tim.
The sad fool is totally unable to see the irony in almost all of his statements.
I shall leave him to writhe in his own self-righteous self-delusion.
RSP
What Cedric is missing is the fact that, though I am inclined to the "critical" side (Oh, shock, horror! I am declaring myself a denialist! For some reason, this seems to lead down the road for me also denying evolution, HIV, the holocaust, the Moon landings, etc...), but my own natural scepticism is asking me if that is because that is what I WANT to hear from these many threads.
BOTH sides of the argument have something to gain from winning, one more than the other.
The feeble bleats from the "Cause" make me believe that my initial scepticism is right, but I do keep testing.
The evidence is that doubting and testing of self is something that Cedric would never consider - after all, he is always right!
RSP
You shout at me for viewing blogs, but yourself contribute to a blog - this one.
Not true.
I have not "shouted" at you.
I have clearly demonstrated that you rely upon blogs as your source of information on science.
Using blogs is a bad idea.
I don't "contribute" to this blog.
I just comment on it.
Two very different things.
Nor is it the same thing as using it as a source of information about science.
That dog will not hunt.
You use blogs and newspapers. I do not. My methodology is not the same as yours.
That's as plain as day.
There's no way around it. No amount of twisting by you will change that simple fact.
When I want information on climate change I will go to those that do the work and are the very best in their field.
There's nothing religious about that.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet produce the vast body of peer-reviewed literature. I am swayed by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
I would use the same methodology for cancer research.
Will you consider looking at the many YouTube vids...
No, that won't do.
I don't get my science information from "Youtube videos" any more than I get my science information from blogs.
It doesn't happen.
Will I link to videos?
Sure.
It saves time and helps me make a point quickly in a debate.
Do I rely upon videos as a source of information about science?
No.
That would be stupid.
My standards are much better than that.
So where do I go to for science information?
(Go on, guess!)
That's right, NASA.
I go to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
You, sadly, do not.
In fact, bizarrely enough, you did not even know what their position was on the issue of climate change 48 hours ago. You are so incurious that you never bothered for yourself to find out.
For years as a meteorological observer, you sent reports to the likes of NOAA and the British Met Office, and received forecasts back from them and you never once bothered to use them to find out about the current state of climate change science.
Wow.
All the scientific communities on the planet covering all the Earth Science representing every industrialised nation and...you hadn't a clue.
That's weapon's grade ignorance.
An ignorance that was carefully nurtured by the blogs you read.
Yet once you finally figured it out, how did you react?
Did you decide that maybe a methodology that would allow you to make such an elementary mistake wasn't worth a damn and maybe you should adopt a more sensible approach?
Heck no!
You instantly started reaching for vague, insubstantial conspiracy theories to somehow (anyhow) justify ignoring NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
However, I suspect that only those who submit such blogs that agree with your safely...
Clearly what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Let me spell it out for you again:
Me no usee bloggees. Understandeee?
It no happeneee.
Blogs. No.
NASA? Yes.
Scientific community? Yes.
No blogees.
All I ask you to do is to read the letter...
You mean the one you found on a blog?
That letter?
Ah.
...after all, he is always right!
Never said this. Never even suggested this. Strawman.
I can hear the wail now: "But it's NASA! How can it be wrong!"
Never said this. Never even suggested this. Strawman.
I shall leave him to writhe in his own self-righteous self-delusion.
I get my science information from NASA and every single science community on the planet. I fully accept their conclusions.
It's not possible for an honest person to translate that into a "self-righteous self-delusion".
Hello Tim,
He’s at it again - even in winnning, he cannot be silent:
“I don't "contribute" to this blog.
I just comment on it.
Two very different things.”
Unable to see that he is contributing comments to this blog. Unable to see the bullying, shouty phraseology of his contributions. And quite happy to give the impression that not only has he not looked at the sites given, but has no intention of visiting them. Oh, to have such an open mind!
“I go to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.”
Now THAT is dedication! There are thousands! So how are these visited? In person; are the author(s) of the research interviewed? Or is it the copies of the work is viewed in a library?
If so, well done him! I cannot do that. I have to surf the net. I have discarded many sites; many are up for review; even more I have yet to visit. Those few that I have submitted, are discounted as “blogs”:
“You use blogs and newspapers. I do not. My methodology is not the same as yours.”
“Me no usee bloggees. Understandeee?
It no happeneee.
Blogs. No.”
I have visited those supplied to us (though not all have succeeded in downloading). Oddly enough, they are very similar in presentation to the despised “blogs” and newspapers. Why are they so more credible than mine? Might it be that they happen to express views that he is in agreement with?
Curiously, I have yet to find anywhere on the NASA site that tells me that the perceived climate change is anthropogenic – i.e. man-made. It appears to me to be an organisation that collects data for others to interpret. I can find nothing (but please, direct to the place that does) where NASA state “AGW is real! Get scared!” That is the only point I have been looking for: is that statement correct?
“There are no prophets in science.”
Yet we are sent to a link with people making prophecies (military ones) “In thirty to forty years time…” Past events can give an indication of future events - the sun will rise in the morning - but are not a guarantee - it snowed last November, so it will snow next November.
Further information for your interest:
OED:
publication
Pronunciation:/ˌpʌblɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]
• the preparation and issuing of a book, journal, or piece of music for public sale:the publication of her first novel
• the action of making something generally known:the publication of April trade figures
• [count noun] a book or journal issued for public sale:scientific publications
Origin:
late Middle English (in the sense ‘public announcement or declaration’): via Old French from Latin publicatio(n-), from publicare 'make public' (see publish)
And some videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO63oWe6XXo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipc7WMgorEY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwM_B4-5gaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28bRgmwecKE
RSP
Unable to see that he is contributing comments to this blog.
That is just sad.
Grow up. If you have to stoop to such spin to justify your previous claims then you only embarrass yourself.
And quite happy to give the impression that not only has he not looked at the sites given, but has no intention of visiting them.
By "sites" you really mean blogs?
(...facepalm...)
I don't rely on blogs or newspaper articles for my science information.
It doesn't happen.
My standards are better than that.
Maybe one day you will finally get it and I won't have to keep reminding you of it again and again and again and....
Oh, to have such an open mind!
I'm a skeptic, not a sucker.
"Keep an open mind –
but not so open that your brain falls out"
“I go to NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.”
Now THAT is dedication! There are thousands! So how are these visited? In person; are the author(s) of the research interviewed? Or is it the copies of the work is viewed in a library?
There is this thing called the Internet. The scientific communities of the world have official websites where they put their conclusions about climate change for the general public to see.
Duh!
Those few that I have submitted, are discounted as “blogs”
A blog is just a blog.
It's not the same thing as a scientific community that sets up a website to communicate with the general public.
They really and truly are different.
No amount of spin from you can change that.
Oddly enough, they are very similar in presentation to the despised “blogs” and newspapers.
Not so odd.
The way something is presented can look very convincing. All that glitters is not gold. A genuine skeptic would look closer. Primary sources? Hello?
Why are they so more credible than mine?
Hmm, tough question. Why would going to NOAA or the RMET on the subject of climate change be more credible that going to some no-name blog?
Gee, that's...wow!
A real stumper there!!
Might it be that they happen to express views that he is in agreement with?
Or it could have something to do with the fact that absolutely anybody can set up a blog.
(shrug)
Curiously, I have yet to find anywhere on the NASA site that tells me that the perceived climate change is anthropogenic – i.e. man-made.
Oh?
(giggle)
Ok. So what do they say?
Quote them. Let them speak for themselves.
Quote them.
You are already long familiar with a variety of scientific communities out there, correct?
The National Academy of Sciences? The AAAS. The Royal Society, the RMET, the CSIRO, the British Antarctic Survey, The American Meteorological Society etc.
There is a massive variety of scientific communities out there covering all the Earth Sciences.
Feel free to pick your own personal top ten.
Don’t let me influence you in any way.
Now go to the respective official websites of your top ten favourite scientific communities and see what they have to say on the subject of global warming and climate change.
Read their own words without the middlemen from the blogosphere.
You will quickly find that the blogs and the newspapers have not been telling you the real story.
It appears to me to be an organisation that collects data for others to interpret.
So NASA just collects data?
It never interprets the data?
Wow.
That's amazing.
Well, if you say so. You have discovered something no-one else has. Congratulations.
(...facepalm...)
“There are no prophets in science.”
Yet we are sent to a link with people making prophecies...
Liar.
Science does not make prophecies.
Avail yourself of a dictionary.
No dogmas, no high priests, no orthodoxy, no mantras, no churches, etc.
Science does not work the same as religion. They are different.
Excuse me, Cedric, but I was discussing this with Tim. You are not contributing to this “blog”, are you? Surely not? (Please, stay with me, Tim, and the others…)
Without wishing to prick your bubble, I have visited the sites you mentioned. (Though “RMET”? – the Ruskin Mill Education Trust doesn’t seem too interested in climate change; videos games and casino sites – after a few futile searches, I visited the Farlex free dictionary for the acronym – though, technically, an acronym is a word constructed from, or close to, the initials, like NATO, RADAR, LASER – and found Expert Witness Directory, and a few similar others. So, are you giving us proper information?). As might be expected for any such organisation, the debate on AGW is kept well at arms’ length: politically, it is a very hot potato, and no-one really wants to drop it. But few make any commitment either way – though I did get “it is inappropriate to use short term data sets to determine long term trends.” from CSIRO, and “The effects of the ozone hole have shielded much of the Antarctic continent from the impact of ‘global warming’ from the British Antarctic Survey. Mind you, even should the organisation grasp the nettle, not all the members of the organisation will be in agreement with the conclusion. If that was not the case in any scientific body, anyone would be very suspicious of the body; many are still in disagreement with the origins of the universe (is it “Big Bang” or “Steady State”; personally, I am with the former, but that cannot exclude the latter).
“Everyone” (i.e. those who have a vested interest in the idea) is blaming CO2 for the perceived climate change. I am puzzled as to how a gas that is essential to life (it is exhaled by all, and “ingested” by many) yet comprises such a small proportion of the atmosphere (figures vary, from 0.03% to 0.05%; the increase varies, too) have such a significant effect on the climate?
“Science does not make prophecies.” Have you seen the sites you are linking us to?
Some of them are blatant scaremongering; science cannot prophecise the weather in three days with any degree of accuracy, yet they are “prophecising” DECADES in advance. But we don’t want to bother with that as, actually, your statement is not true. Because of the scientific measurement and observation of the celestial sphere, predictions (prophecies) can be made on the positions of virtually all the observed heavenly bodies – for decades hence! Wow! Now, that IS impressive.
“Oh?
(giggle)
Ok. So what do they say?
Quote them. Let them speak for themselves.
Quote them.”
How can I? I said that I cannot find anywhere they do! Can you find it? If so, enlighten us.
Actually, why bother. I state that I cannot find a statement, then you tell me to find a quote (giggle) where they say what I am saying that they are not saying. I mean – how thick can you get!?
Climate change is occurring. Yep, cannot argue with that. The climate has been considered remarkably stable for a long time; now, it appears to be reverting to how it has performed over the recent millennia – i.e. up and down; at present, it seems to be on the up. Soon, it appears, we will once more be able to farm in Greenland, after a break of a thousand years. That’ll help to feed the world. What’s the complaint?
I suspect, Cedric, that you have no idea what WE are talking about. However, you have made on huge leap to a conclusion (and you, of course, are ALWAYS right), and leapt down our collective throats with generally rabid diatribes against us.
Of course, you have never visited any of the sites recommended (but, hey, why should a supposedly scientific mind look at something he might not agree with?). You do not have to agree with what is being stated on the site; you might even get the option to express your disagreement (like on this blog). But how you can discount them without viewing them is truly, truly mind-boggling.
Pat yourself on the back – I have visited every site you have supplied.
(MORE)
(CONTINUED)
“…indeed, there is growing evidence that the "warmists" are resorting to (…)sabotaging the careers of those who disagree with them.
And you found out about this shocking state of affairs from…blogs and newspapers? Right?
Ah.”
Actually, I have read the released e-mails that have created such a stir. And interesting a few of them are, too (though many, many are very, very boring. But, I HAVE read them). What is especially interesting is that the reputed authors of these e-mails DO NOT DENY that these e-mails are theirs – they merely dispute that the content of the e-mails are being taken out of context, and, as said content can be very specific is an interesting idea. Which, should you read the e-mails, is very interesting.
“All that glitters is not gold.” (“All that GLISTERS…” is actually the correct expression, but don’t let me bore you with such details…)
You see, Cedic, I have a feeling that you really have no idea what we are talking about, you do not even CARE what we are talking about; you want to stick your paddle into the turgid waters of debate, and stir. You have no definite ideas or notions of what we might be discussing; but that is irrelevant. You are right – even if you have no idea quite WHAT you are right about; others question your devout belief in yourself, and all you can respond with it the uttermost expressions of scorn and derision for the disagree-er (you know, I am not sure that word actually exists in English!). You have gone to extraordinary lengths to prove your complete and utter stupidity, your truly unfathomable depths of ignorance, and your unscalable heights of arrogance – and yet you continue with these contributions!
And, to add cream to the pudding, you then say that you are NOT contributing!
My, how we are laughing at you, you sucker! I have had a few days of unutterable boredom, when all I have had is up to fifteen hours with nothing else to do but sit at this lap-top and trawl the internet, searching for self-opinionated mugs - and I have landed myself one whopper of a catch!
Thank you for these few days of enjoyment, Cedric. The other contributors and readers of this site will have been laughing themselves silly at your expense – you may have even caused some involuntary sex-changes! And the true delight is that you cannot see that – you will not even be able to accept that! I have little doubt that you will respond with yet another blog filled with execrable rants as you try to redress the balance. Sorry, Cedric. You have lost it. Stay off these blogs, unless you have something constructive to contribute.
RSP
"And you found out about this shocking state of affairs from…blogs and newspapers? Right?
Ah.”
Actually, I have read the released e-mails...
A simple "Yes" will suffice.
It appears to me to be an organisation that collects data for others to interpret.
So NASA just collects data?
It never interprets the data?
Wow.
That's amazing.
Well, if you say so. You have discovered something no-one else has. Congratulations.
(...facepalm...)
You are not contributing to this “blog”, are you?
No. I just comment.
Nor do I get my science information from blogs (including this one).
Learn to understand basic English.
I have visited the sites you mentioned.
And what did they say?
Quotes? Details?
Hello?
As might be expected for any such organisation, the debate on AGW is kept well at arms’ length...
Why do you lie?
There is this thing called the...Internet. If someone can read your claims (on the internet) then they can gain access to the official websites of all the scientific communities on the planet (on the internet).
You want to make a claim?
You have to back it up.
As might be expected for any such organisation, the debate on AGW is kept well at arms’ length...
Lie. I don't believe you. Back it up.
Quote them. Give a little detail.
They can speak for themselves.
So quote them.
I am puzzled as to how a gas that is blah, blah, blah...
I am sure you are puzzled by a great many things.
Not my problem.
NASA is not puzzled however.
Neither is every single scientific community on the planet.
They know a great deal about gasses.
"Science does not make prophecies"
Have you seen the sites you are linking us to?
It does not matter what sites I link to or do not link to.
Science does not make prophecies.
That's a basic fact.
No amount of babble from you can change that.
Look up the word in a dictionary.
...science cannot prophecise the weather in three days with...
Again, science is not in the business of prophecy. Science and religion are not the same.
Honest.
"So what do they say?
Quote them. Let them speak for themselves.
Quote them.”
How can I? I said that I cannot find anywhere they do! Can you find it? If so, enlighten us.
Don't be so dull-witted..
NASA has a website.
The website is not a blank nothingness.
There is writing there. Writing in plain English.
Quote the writing.
What does NASA say about climate change?
Quote what they do say. Stop listening to the voices in your head.
Climate change is occurring. Yep, cannot argue with that.(...)It seems to be on the up.
Oops.
(...awkward silence...)
Umm,...so...you don't believe that it's getting colder?
Oh.
I see.
(...lots more awkward silence...)
How did you find that out?
Please feel free to give details.
Once more, Cedric, you prove my points:
a) you have no idea what this blog is about;
b) you have no idea what others have been talking about;
c) you have no idea what I have been talking about;
d) you have no idea what you are talking about;
e) you do not fully read my replies, and;
f) you do not look at the sites you send me to.
I have had great fun winding you up, though I have a feeling I may have gone too far, and you will never now unwind, endlessly spinning like a top. Perhaps we ought to tap you into the national grid.
Farewell.
RSP
Farewell.
Tuck your tail between your legs and run away if that's what you want to do.
Only spare me the handwaving babble.
If you want to go then go with a little dignity.
(Even a liar like you should be able to manage that.)
Climate change is occurring. Yep, cannot argue with that.(...)It seems to be on the up.
Oops.
(...awkward silence...)
Umm,...so...you don't believe that it's getting colder?
Oh.
I see.
(...lots more awkward silence...)
How did you find that out?
Please feel free to give details.
Like I said, Cedric, you have no idea what YOU are talking about, let alone me or any of the others (or Willis Eschenbach).
The debate was about climate change; over the millenia it has varied, having ups and downs - at the moment, the "consensus" is that it is on the up (oh, do look at the video blogs you sent me to!).
It is probable that the reason you perceive that it is getting colder is that winter is approaching; this happens every year - the common labelling of this phenomenon is "SEASONS".
However, I shall leave you to it. As Oscar Wilde said: "In a battle of wits I will not fight with an unarmed person." Alas, I have. Sorry.
RSP
...at the moment, the "consensus" is that it is on the up...
So you agree that there is a scientific consensus that it's getting warmer?
Oops.
It is probable that the reason you perceive that it is getting colder...
Moi?
Oh no.
Not me. Definitely not me.
Someone else.
...is that winter is approaching; this happens every year - the common labelling of this phenomenon is "SEASONS".
Oops.
Are you saying that scientists expect winter...every year?
But doesn't that fly in the face of global warming?
What about all that snow last winter?
You don't think that all that snow means that it's getting colder?
Really?
You think that there a consensus that it's getting warmer?
Ok.
(...dramatic pause...)
Can you demonstrate you are correct?
Can you offer any serious evidence that it's getting warmer?
There was a lot of snow last year.
Lots of snow.
How can you explain that?
I am very tempted to reply, but it is like shooting fish in a barrel - while it may be easy, it can get a bit boring.
RSP
I am very tempted to reply, but it is like shooting fish in a barrel - while it may be easy, it can get a bit boring.
Oh go on.
Be a devil.
Pull that trigger. Shoot that big, fat fish in that tiny barrel.
Where do you get this leftist fantasy that there is a scientific consensus that it's getting warmer?
Pshaw, I say in proxy.
Pshaw.
There was a lot of snow last year.
Lots of snow.
Lots and lots and lots of snow.
How can you explain that?
Can you demonstrate you are correct?
Can you offer any serious evidence that it's getting warmer?
So, Cedric, you are now saying that this whole thing about man-made global warming is a myth – the world is actually getting colder. Should we now be worried about another ice age?
All very odd; your very first contribution to this blog decries a person who is saying something similar (i.e. that research into AGW is suspect, which makes the idea of AGW suspect) – Willis Eschenbach. Mind you, you couldn’t even get his name right, which says a lot about YOUR research capability.
For all your claims and bluster that I believe the “consensus” that global warming is real, I have said nothing of the sort: what I have said is that there are a lot of scientists who say AGW is real, and a lot who say it is not. Those who say it is real are listened to by governments; those who doubt it are denounced as “denialists” – of which you now say you are one.
This is despite you telling me a few days ago that you know every scientific institute in the world (including NASA) says that global warming is real.
Like I have said, not only do you have no idea what we are talking about, you don’t even have any idea what YOU are talking about. You are contributing to this blog, yet tell me that you do not read blogs (or, it seems, newspapers). I say that I cannot find something, and you tell me prove that it is not there by showing me where it is that I am saying that it is not; you ask me to find a quote from a site that says what I am saying it is not saying. You are taking “stupid” to whole new levels, here!
RSP
So, Cedric, you are now saying that this whole thing about man-made global warming is a myth – the world is actually getting colder.
No I'm not.
Re-read my comments more carefully. I was very specific. Your reading comprehension level cannot be that woeful.
All very odd; your very first contribution to this blog decries a person...
Nope, I didn't do that.
I didn't "decry" anybody. Read what I read as opposed to what you think I read.
Feel free to quote me in detail.
I dare you.
...what I have said is that there are a lot of scientists who say AGW is real, and a lot who say it is not...
Well, if that's what you have said then you can quote yourself saying that, right?
Give the quote.
I dare you.
For all your claims and bluster that I believe the “consensus” that global warming is real, I have said nothing of the sort...
Wait a minute?
You never mentioned anything about a consensus?
Really?
Never once ever?
Re-read your own words.
You never talked about the temperature (or something or other) going up or anything?
Maybe something about Greenland and being able to feed the world?
Or did you mean that the Earth is getting colder and so Greenland will be colder and therefore...um, somehow...feed the world that way?
Make up your mind.
You are contributing to this blog...
No, I promise you. I am not a contributor to this blog. I only comment on it. I do not contribute. I have never even made a guest article on this blog.
Contact the blog owner.
His name is Allen.
He will be happy to make it clear that he is the sole contributor and proprietor.
He shares the roost with no-one.
Do you get it now?
...yet tell me that you do not read blogs (or, it seems, newspapers).
When did I ever say this?
Quote me.
Stop listening to the voices in your head and read what I actually wrote.
*Read what I read as opposed to what you think I read.*
(Ah, typos.)
That should be "Read what I wrote as opposed to what you think I wrote."
I say that I cannot find something, and you tell me prove that it is not there by showing me where it is that I am saying that it is not...
Pure word salad. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Try that again only instead of creatively re-interpreting the recent past on this very thread, a more objective approach would be to simply...QUOTE...what you said and what I said.
...you ask me to find a quote from a site that says what I am saying it is not saying.
Goobledygook.
Scroll up the page.
Re-read the actual words themselves..
At the rate you are building strawmen, there will soon be a world shortage of straw.
Excuse me, Cedric, but what are you actually arguing about?
Are you saying that global warming is real, and is man-made (as the CRU of the UEA are saying), or are you saying it is not? Are you with the "Consensus" or a "Denialist"?
Or are you contributing to this blog just to shout down and ridicule other posters?
RSP
The post that is timestamped at December 10, 2011 7:02 PM is an addendum only.
The prior post should pop up soon.
Please wait.
These delays sometimes happen. There does not seem to be a reason for them.
Embedded links do not seem to make a difference nor the size of the post. One might get through smoothly yet another vanishes for days.
Or are you contributing to this blog just to shout down and ridicule other posters?
I've already told you why I am here.
Again, I compare and contrast the way certain groups get their science information and the rationalisations they employ to justify ignoring mainstream science.
Here is an example:
…indeed, there is growing evidence that the "Warmists" are resorting to (…)sabotaging the careers of those who disagree with them.
You used this to sound off about climate change. Yet with only a minor label change ANYONE can use it as a creationist argument or an HIV denier argument or an anti-vaxxer argument.
There are multiple groups out there with an axe to grind against mainstream science.
They are NOT your friends.
"…indeed, there is growing evidence that the Darwinists are resorting to(…)sabotaging the careers of those who disagree with them."
Notice how your accusation is fully intact? I changed nothing but the label.
The person who wrote it is a known and respected scientist, as are others who are also contributing to that site…
A supporter of Kent Hovind or Dr Peter Deusberg could say exactly the same thing.
I have been reading articles, papers, blogs, responses to blogs, whatever I can find with my limited resources.
And an HIV denier could claim the same. This is exactly how various groups get their science information. There are multiple, real-life examples of this. Getting your science information using this methodology leads other people to stop using vaccines for their children. This leads to low immunisation rates and children dying from pertussis, measles and, one day, polio could make a comeback.
You must change your methodology.
You must raise your standards.
Otherwise, you don't get to complain when some other group uses your exact same methods to draw conclusions about some other scientific issue that can end up harming you and your community.
...the scientific community DOES seem to have converted their research into a belief - those who believe in AGW do appear to have an air of religious fervour about them.
"...the scientific community DOES seem to have converted their research into a belief - those who believe in Evolution do appear to have an air of religious fervour about them."
"...the scientific community DOES seem to have converted their research into a belief - those who believe in the safety of childhood vaccines do appear to have an air of religious fervour about them."
"...the scientific community DOES seem to have converted their research into a belief - those who believe in the link between HIV and AIDS do appear to have an air of religious fervour about them."
One more example from you:
...but I could not help thinking, “Well, this is the organisation fishing for funds. Could it be that they have seen which way the wind blows and have set their sails accordingly?”
No need to change a thing. It serves well for any denialist group out there.
Your statements are not exclusive to climate change. They can be recycled to serve others. Just switch the labels around. By using these arguments, you legitimise them.
You are not an HIV denier.
You just use happen to use their playbook.
Bad and dangerous idea.
I have come to the conclusion that it is the last of those three paragraphs that is your raison d’être.
I gave you an excellent chance to educate me: “I am puzzled as to how a gas that is essential to life (it is exhaled by all, and “ingested” by many) yet comprises such a small proportion of the atmosphere (figures vary, from 0.03% to 0.05%; the increase varies, too) have such a significant effect on the climate?”
Any sensible person would have taken that as an invitation to enlighten me, to explain how such a small proportion can have such a dramatic effect. But no, like a very bad teacher of 8th grade students, all you could do was to stand there and pour ridicule and scorn on me. And, like all those situations, it is really you upon whom the scorn and ridicule ultimately pour.
You tell me of all those exciting organisations and their on-line sites and blogs, and tell me to look there. When I say that I can find nothing that supports your argument, you then ask me to quote them! How can I? There is no quote! I suspect that if I were to say, “There is no water in that desert,” you would scream at me; “Show me! Show me where there is no water! Prove it!” All I would be able to do would be to look out at the vast expanse of dry sand.
As for: “*Read what I read as opposed to what you think I read.*
(Ah, typos.)”
Yes. It certainly does look like a typo, and I am certainly prone to those. But it is not from this blog. I do not remember typing it, have reviewed the blog, and cannot find it. Perhaps you will now demand that I quote from where it is not.
No, Cedric, I accept the wise words of CenTex Tim: “Never argue with a fool. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
I shall leave you now, Cedric (and all those others who have been looking on in amusement and bemusement). I have little doubt that you will be screaming after me, telling me to run like a cowardly dog, whereas I will actually strut and swagger; but I won’t turn round. I have other blogs to explore, other arguments to engage in.
RSP
I gave you an excellent chance to educate me: “I am puzzled as to how a gas that is essential to life (it is exhaled by all, and “ingested” by many) yet comprises such a small proportion of the atmosphere (figures vary, from 0.03% to 0.05%; the increase varies, too) have such a significant effect on the climate?”
Easy. You are puzzled because of the way you get your science information.
I have been reading articles, papers, blogs, responses to blogs, whatever I can find with my limited resources.
So...you are puzzled.
The correct procedure would be to go to a mainstream scientific resource.
NASA is a good example.
They know a lot about gasses.
Honest.
They are also incredibly good at finding out what affects the climate-significant or otherwise.
Why settle for less?
Let them educate you rather than anonymous people on the internet.
Any sensible person would have taken that as an invitation to enlighten me...
"Sensible people" have been "enlightening" you via papers, articles ,blogs, responses to blogs and heavens knows what else. That is why you are puzzled.
Lift your game.
You tell me of all those exciting organisations and their on-line sites and blogs, and tell me to look there. When I say that I can find nothing that supports your argument, you then ask me to quote them! How can I?
Because they write in English?
Plain English?
All you have to do is read the official websites from the scientific communities and quote what they say.
Don't look for something that is not there.
Read the stuff that is there right in front of your face.
Then quote that.
Easy, yes?
There is no quote!
There's lots of things to quote. It's all good.
Quote any and all of it.
But it is not from this blog. I do not remember typing it, have reviewed the blog, and cannot find it.
That's because what happened to some of your previous posts (vanishing after you type them and then later re-appearing) has happened to my previous post.
(...facepalm...)
...whereas I will actually strut and swagger; but I won’t turn round.
You are confused.
I have other blogs to explore, other arguments to engage in.
There is indeed a vast sea of blogs out there. They will tell you anything you want to hear. However, not all of them will be backed up by mainstream science. Unless you change your methodology you will not be a genuine skeptic but a sucker.
You are being led by the nose.
Post a Comment