tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post1494476299257875932..comments2023-10-26T07:19:41.446-05:00Comments on Science Avenger: An Analysis of the Hacked Global Warming E-mailsScienceAvengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-10210319794487799392010-02-23T23:39:02.028-06:002010-02-23T23:39:02.028-06:00Excerpts of New Senate Climategate Report
http:/...Excerpts of New Senate Climategate Report <br /><br />http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fa8e9e7f-802a-23ad-4a0c-bc0da0ade611Verandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-2989928581651946202009-11-30T12:06:31.299-06:002009-11-30T12:06:31.299-06:00For the same reasons I am confident that when a fo...For the same reasons I am confident that when a football coach says "fake" he doesn't mean deception. That just isn't the way the words are used in the broader context in either case. <br /><br />As usual the deniers have the burdon of proof backwards. No one out here has to "explain" anything. If you think you have a case that there is some sort of deception going on here, and that somehow this casts doubt on the entirety of the AGW hypothesis, then by all means make the argument and reference the supporting data/commentary in its entirety. Merely tossing around out-of-context quotes and barking "explain that" doesn't cut it.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-66879694394190155142009-11-29T23:50:10.393-06:002009-11-29T23:50:10.393-06:00No way to be clear? Then why are you so confident ...No way to be clear? Then why are you so confident that "trick" merely means "useful technique" and not deception?Verandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-7747329285545937372009-11-29T23:17:57.608-06:002009-11-29T23:17:57.608-06:00Explain what? Without the full context of the com...Explain what? Without the full context of the comments, there's really nothing to explain, because there's no way to be clear on what they are talking about. That's the big point here.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-77947604520695194682009-11-29T19:28:43.450-06:002009-11-29T19:28:43.450-06:00""I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature tric...""I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."<br /><br />As has been explained in many places already, "trick" in this context means "useful technique", not "deception". Another word that springs to mind is "reach"."<br /><br />Hmmm, a "useful technique" to HIDE THE DECLINE. Explain that, please.Verandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-51811410679431116412009-11-24T13:18:36.754-06:002009-11-24T13:18:36.754-06:00That's because this is a site about science, n...That's because this is a site about science, not PR, and because the PR problem is only because of the ignorance and deception going on out there in the denialist world. It's all contrived, and unworthy of serious thought.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-73976542896747475842009-11-24T12:10:19.388-06:002009-11-24T12:10:19.388-06:00I was talking in terms of PR, too. It was obvious ...I was talking in terms of PR, too. It was obvious that Monbiot wouldn't change his opinion on GW. Too obvious to mention. You didn't even go that far (i.e. mentioning PR) in your initial post.hectornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-5293302538596180602009-11-24T08:38:32.183-06:002009-11-24T08:38:32.183-06:00As is typical of dishonest quoteminers, you leave ...As is typical of dishonest quoteminers, you leave off the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists" rel="nofollow">complete quote</a> that shows he's talking in terms of PR, not science:<br /><br />"But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed."<br /><br />He then goes on to show what a truly damning email would look like. I encourage everyone to go look at it, and see by contrast how lame the hacked emails are, and how desperate the deniers are to paint this as some sort of major victory.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-52092721405152641932009-11-24T07:26:36.632-06:002009-11-24T07:26:36.632-06:00"George Monbiot, a writer and environmental a..."George Monbiot, a writer and environmental activist many consider to be Great Britain's Al Gore" says: "there's "no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging"hectornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-79282012881743495142009-11-22T18:04:48.497-06:002009-11-22T18:04:48.497-06:00Some of these lines sound like things that I write...Some of these lines sound like things that I write all the time in my work. I do software R&D in a field that involves probability and statistics for security systems. <br /><br />I freely pass data back and forth with my colleagues, but the moment somebody from marketing shows up and asks for the same thing, I freeze up. Nothing gets the ball rolling in the wrong direction faster and more dangerously than somebody with only half a clue about the data sending emails everywhere. <br /><br />The fact that I'm reluctant to give semi-technical people my data and calculations has nothing to do with my being uncertain about my work. It has everything to do with the fact that when somebody sends out an alarmist email, the people who decide whether or not to panic don't necessarily have the background to distinguish between misinterpretation of the data and a genuine problem. <br /><br />Of course, I'm not working in an environment where people just want my data so they can convict me in the court of public opinion and then cancel my program. If it was that bad, I'd be even harder to pin down.Troublesome Frognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-14081589397878614442009-11-22T14:37:45.869-06:002009-11-22T14:37:45.869-06:00I'm a climate denier, Mr. Universe. I look out...I'm a climate denier, Mr. Universe. I look outside my window and see no climate at all!Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-56289274880932666332009-11-22T11:26:20.483-06:002009-11-22T11:26:20.483-06:00Thanks. Amazing what people can see when its all ...Thanks. Amazing what people can see when its all they want to see, eh? The mind is a terrible thing to waste on conspiracies.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-34359124650757312902009-11-21T13:19:37.415-06:002009-11-21T13:19:37.415-06:00Way to go Mr. Avenger. Sorry you had to take on ou...Way to go Mr. Avenger. Sorry you had to take on our token climate denier over at 538. It's actually a lost cause. But good effort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com