tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 they're drawn from the same pool as the 2009 ones and those ended up meaning nothing. so why is the second release meaningful? According to you. To others, they exposed the inherent bias, and haughty attitude present in much of the scientific community. Again, no reasonable person is going to think these emails disprove AGW. As Will has already said, that isn't the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 <0953> Jones: This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary. So Prof. Jones.....WRT sulphates, do they or don't they cool and to what degree? So "they" were going to "explain" cooling with sulphates....but something better came along to take the pressure off the sulphate slant.....good science!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 What is this even supposed to mean? What is the context that is missing, and how come so many of you are positive the emails are "out of context"? This is not complicated - the minimum context for an email is the complete email thread. The full context might involve multiple email threads plus additional commentary from the authors explaining what they were writing about. A single email is like a single piece of a jigsaw puzzle - impossible to do much with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 What is this even supposed to mean? What is the context that is missing, and how come so many of you are positive the emails are "out of context"? Because they were obtained by above board means by people with only the best intentions at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm not sure what is being argued now...Mann's hockey stick has been torn to shreds in multiple peer reviewed papers. As for suppression, why do we see quotes like this: That's an unsupported assertion - could you please provide links to those "multiple peer reviewed papers"? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Ok. But since none of us have the full emails, don't you think it's just as silly to automatically assume the conversations are meaningless and say nothing about those involved? It's like some of you just want to quickly brush these comments under the rug and pretend they didn't exist. The criminal hackers who stole the emails had the full versions, the editing was done afterwards. What was released is only what they wanted to show you. It that so hard to understand? Or do you seriously think that Jones, Mann, et al redacted their own emails in hope that they would be hacked some day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 What type of "disinformation" has McIntyre been involved in? Sounds like witch hunting. The entire denial machine of which he is a major player. See his Climate Audit website. He allows his critique of the original hockey stick to carry on as if it has debunked the paleoclimate record which it has not. But then, his not really a scientist so what does he know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Wait...so it's ok for you to use emails to discredit skeptics, but not the other way around? Climate science is done by scientists, skeptics are frauds masquerading as scientific contemporaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 The criminal hackers who stole the emails had the full versions, the editing was done afterwards. What was released is only what they wanted to show you. It that so hard to understand? Or do you seriously think that Jones, Mann, et al redacted their own emails in hope that they would be hacked some day? That isn't the point. The point is that we shouldn't assume the context completely excuses them either, as some of you want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 perhaps you should read threads before posting in them. Perhaps you should allow those with opposing views to express their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Climate science is done by scientists, skeptics are frauds masquerading as scientific contemporaries. You can be very reasonable, but that might be the most closeminded and contemptuous thing I've ever heard you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 Climate science is done by scientists, skeptics are frauds masquerading as scientific contemporaries. ie....no room for disagreement in science....gotcha!!! Rather testy today Rusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 how involved are you in the peer review system? Way to sidestep the point. How involved are you in developing computer climate models? See, I can do it too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 According to you. To others, they exposed the inherent bias, and haughty attitude present in much of the scientific community. Again, no reasonable person is going to think these emails disprove AGW. As Will has already said, that isn't the point. A protective attitude demanded as a response to unethical, villainous scoundrels whose only purpose is to damage climate science and it's practitioners. Societies response...blame the victim. Dirtball skeptics win PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 ie....no room for disagreement in science....gotcha!!! Rather testy today Rusty. You call a PR campaign science. That's not science...it is gamesmanship. You win. We all lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 You call a PR campaign science. That's not science...it is gamesmanship. You win. We all lose. That is not what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 A protective attitude demanded as a response to unethical, villainous scoundrels whose only purpose is to damage climate science and it's practitioners. Societies response...blame the victim. Dirtball skeptics win PR. The only damage that can be done here comes from their own words. Do we all say things in private that we wouldn't want the whole world to hear? Sure. But what you say when you think no one will hear you is often quite telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 You can be very reasonable, but that might be the most closeminded and contemptuous thing I've ever heard you say. Well, I am wise to what is going on. These type of pranks seem to always be saved for release just before major climate conferences. I said what I mean and I mean what I said. The topic of this tread opens the door. How otherwise honest, good people can condone this unethical behavior in support of greed and political agenda is really disappointing to me. Not unexpected though, it is still the way of the world, and is the basic reason I have little hope for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 That is not what he said. Yes he did. No science is being conducted in this matter. It's not a scientific disagreement at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 how do you know what is being deleted? reviewers don't edit papers and they can't themselves delete parts of what they are reviewing. so it makes sense that it was a discussion about self-editing, not suppressing an opposite view. this is a discussion about editing a response or rebuttal to a paper--which is not suppression but regular science--and deciding not to publish in a journal that apperas to have become biased. again, self-editing, not suppressing others. this journal published a paper so shoddy (Soon and Baliunas) that Von Storch resigned as EIC, so did other editors, because of the bias of the review process. again, this refers to the controversy surrounding the Soon paper, which was published, not suppressed. deciding not go submit to a crappy journal is not suppression. Of course, but let's not let the truth cloud the endlessly repeated illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 now a mod is threatening me for respectfully asking questions? WTF? first, I was responding to specific comments about suppression and he jumped in without having read the thread to challenge the reason I was addressing it simply b/c he hadn't bothered to read the thread. second, I have not kept anyone from posting in this thread. how on Earth could impossibly do so? I don't like being reprimanded for asking people to be intellectually honest about science. There was nothing respectful in your response to me. Don't pretend to be all righteous, no one buys that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 now a mod is threatening me for respectfully asking questions? WTF? first, I was responding to specific comments about suppression and he jumped in without having read the thread to challenge the reason I was addressing it simply b/c he hadn't bothered to read the thread. second, I have not kept anyone from posting in this thread. how on Earth could impossibly do so? I don't like being reprimanded for asking people to be intellectually honest about science. What threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 it totally is the point: you wrote: high impact factor journals don't have biased review systems--to have such a bias would lower it's impact factor and be self-defeating. furthermore, I read peer reviews every day. I can assure you that the process at top publishers allows for free speech, and opposing viewpoints are sought out for balance. my experience is totally relatable to the discussion of the peer review system. You are telling me that a perfect system makes things perfect. That's not reality. Humans aren't perfect and science/scientific review doesn't exist in a vacuum. I respect the fact that you are involved in the scientific peer review process. At the same time, that doesn't guarantee that you have a crystallized view on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 after you challenged me several times for addressing an issue you hadn't bothered to read enough of the thread to know had been introduced by others. I obviously read through the thread, I just hadn't caught that part. Your retort to me was highly condescending. Par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 strawmen. more strawmen. Snowman. If you want a real response, provide one yourself. Throwing out the meaningless and tired "strawman" is just an empty copout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 5111> Pollack: But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland. Very professional! Agenda? If you think this is out of context, then demand the full email via FOI ACT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 5111> Pollack: But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland. Very professional! Agenda? If you think this is out of context, then demand the full email via FOI ACT! That doesn't necessarily mean he want's the MWP to go away, or to hide the warming there. To be fair, there are definitely a few ways that could be interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 That doesn't necessarily mean he want's the MWP to go away, or to hide the warming there. To be fair, there are definitely a few ways that could be interpreted. Like I said, demand the full email via FOI act! Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm not going to defend statements I never made. Those were my statements based on what you had said. You know, like a normal discussion. Do you really just want to argue semantics? If you take this approach, there is no way to have an intelligent and reasonable discussion about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 That isn't the point. The point is that we shouldn't assume the context completely excuses them either, as some of you want to. Actually, it is pretty safe to say that anything missing or redacted does excuse and explain what was released. Why else would they have chopped it out? Certainly not out of respect for the authors of the emails. And certainly not to cover their backsides because they already broke the law by hacking the emails in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.