The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13..24~25~26 [Next]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5023 Posts

Profile of landmark
Thanks, Nosher, for posting the paper. An interesting read. It points to why the Rove-ian tactics are so effective, even when so transparent.

My theory is that whether a "fact" is true or not, once the mind processes it as true, one's true emotions and feelings are engendered. Though the facts can be corrected, it is difficult to deny the true emotions that one experienced, and we conflate the truth of our emotions with the truth of the original fact.

I wonder if those versed in the academic study of psychology have ever run across this idea before?
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16261 Posts

Profile of tommy
What I know is I have been observing the climate where I live for more than half a century and I know I have not noticed any change. Year in and year out it’s the same on average. There was a lot more smoke about when I was kid, I guess because everyone had a coal fire. I still have coal fire but not many do now. They didn’t call London The Smoke for nothing.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-08-05 15:14, landmark wrote:
Thanks, Nosher, for posting the paper. An interesting read. It points to why the Rove-ian tactics are so effective, even when so transparent.

My theory is that whether a "fact" is true or not, once the mind processes it as true, one's true emotions and feelings are engendered. Though the facts can be corrected, it is difficult to deny the true emotions that one experienced, and we conflate the truth of our emotions with the truth of the original fact.

I wonder if those versed in the academic study of psychology have ever run across this idea before?


As I said, the truth is a tough thing to find when you already know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be. That is the very problem with science today. The scientists have a vested interest in outcome, not simply in the research.

John KNOWS his truth, which is why we keep saying it is his religion.

I have no problem with these things, evolution is a fine debate to have as the outcome will not be devistating to global markets as we know it. The problem with the climate change nonsense is the "truth" keeps changing. You can not make policy when this is what is going on. More research, and proper research is needed.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-06 09:29, Dannydoyle wrote:

As I said, the truth is a tough thing to find when you already know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be. That is the very problem with science today. The scientists have a vested interest in outcome, not simply in the research.

John KNOWS his truth, which is why we keep saying it is his religion.




Danny you are either dishonest or a fool. You make assertion after assertion and provide no evidence. One last chance, Danny. Provide a quotation or other serious evidence of this most recent assertion of yours.



John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5023 Posts

Profile of landmark
John, the interesting about Karl Rove is that though his tactics have been effective, the overuse of them inures the public as they realize that the same techniques are being used over and over again. The endless assertions without evidence, the accusing the other side of exactly what they themselves are doing, the appeals to patriotism, the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism are all well known. What I find most interesting is that the lies have to become bigger and bigger to cover their other lies, and so a whole new alternate reality is created. Fortunately, though most people can be fooled by artfully created lies, a whole new world is too much to swallow for most.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

I haven't visited this thread for a while, since I have been reviewing the Muir Russell report, which I had not previously read. I see that the discussion has moved on to other topics.

But, if you are interested in my opinion, I think the Muir Russell report, like Lord Oxburgh's report, is inadequate.

Muir Russell's team interviewed only "CRU and other UEA staff." The investigation was limited to delving into the CRU's explanations for what was discussed in the leaked emails.

The emails should be looked at as the tip of the iceberg, and should be the starting point, rather than the endpoint, of an investigation.

Both of these reports are what we call, in America, "blue ribbon panels." In my experience, in the life sciences rather than geophysical sciences, "blue ribbon panels" have been hoodwinked time and time again. The most egregious scientific fraud case I can think of, the Tom D'Arcy scandal, was completely whitewashed by a "blue ribbon panel" whose findings were triumphantly published in the New England Journal.

Climate science and climate predictions are very interesting. The statistical process needed to convert many kinds of disparate data into a coherent model of a complex process are very interesting.

The political use of those models, however, in order to destroy industrial civilization, and plunge the world into an epoch of poverty, misery, famine, and war, requires that we subject those models to more than the usual level of scrutiny and skepticism.

From the very concept of a "global climate" to discrepancies within the various datasets that are used to define various aspects of climatic data in various parts of the world at various times in history, to the mathematical underpinnings of the models themselves -- all of these elements appear to flawed. If the use to which the results were to be put were not so critical, those flaws would not matter. But when you are asking for such earth-shattering changes, the burden is really on the global warming advocates.

That the global warming panic is more of a religious phenomenon than a scientific phenomenon, can be illustrated by the example of Australia.

Australia emits less than 2% of the world's industrially originating CO2. Yet Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister in part because of his advocacy of making big changes to reduce Australia's level of CO2 production, and like-minded Australians have devoted endless columns of ink to various activities, such as shutting off the lights in Australian cities for a couple of hours on a designated evening. It is clear that nothing Australia or Australians do will have any material effect on world levels of CO2. If every Australian were to commit suicide tomorrow, as many environmentalist extremists would wish (every non-Aboriginal Australian, of course, the effect on the world climate would be negligible. There is no rational reason for Australia to do anything about this problem at all, even if you believe in it (which of course I don't).

one can only conclude that the Australians who want to disrupt their lives to reduce their CO2 emissions are motivated by concerns for their personal salvation, as it were, rather than by a reasonable estimation of the likely effect those drastic disruptions will produce.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Woland. Now that you've looked at the Muir Russell report, I have two questions for you.

1. What is the stated purpose of the report?

2. In what way is it inadequate? Inadequate for what?

3. You earlier asserted
Quote:
Briffa was one of the climatologists who engaged in a conspiracy to silence opposing views and conceal some of their own results ("hide the decline").
The onus is now on you. If you do not believe that he has been properly cleared of wrongdoing then you, the accuser, should be able to bring forth a case against him. Can you?

4. You made an even stronger assertion:
Quote:
I work in a scientific field that is regulated by the Federal government. A scientist in my field who did the sorts of things that were done by the CRU would have his results rejected, be barred from ever again working in the field, and might very well spend time in the hoosegow.
Do you have evidence of this? Real evidence, not hearsay, blogs or gossip.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

No new evidence is necessary. I don't agree with the Russell or Oxburgh conclusions. I don't find the excuses and therefore the exculpation convincing. Based on the same emails that they reviewed, I think the CRU members acted improperly and I find the conduct illustrated by their emails to be egregiously bad.

I know that you and the IPCC and Ban Ki-Moon and Albert Gore all disagree with me.

That's fine.

I am not going to convince you.

Perhaps the next ice age will convince you.

As for me, I hope it doesn't begin for a few more decades.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Woland, evidence is everything.

I'm afraid I was right the first time. You are not to be taken seriously.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Nothing like an insult to end a discussion.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Well when you get him to the point where he must try to see something he does not agree with he mounts the high horse, changes goal posts, insists your experts are not qualified, are disgruntled and simpy do not know anything.

John, are you looking for me to back up my contention that you are a "true believer"? Is that what you want me to post? Do you want me to post proof that you are? I think you have in this thread pretty clearly. Do I need to post proof of pre concieved notions John and how dangerous they are to science or investigation of any sort? What is it that you are stamping your foot demanding proof of exactly?

Do you want proof that scientists on each side of the debate have a vested interest in research grants? Come on John that is goofy. Indeed you are the one who must be a fool if you do not know that this is the way things work. But it is far easier to call those who disagree with you names. I thought you were above that? So high and mighty on your high horse and all and you reduce this to name calling? Wow your arguement must really be losing steam when someone of your vast intellect must resort to simple name calling and insults. To both of us. Gotcha.

Do you have it in YOU to appologise John? Tough from the high horse.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
In the original post, I quoted an op-ed that said
Quote:
Like Watergate, the real scandal of Climategate was not likely to be found in the communications of those who had their emails illegally hacked (or in the case of Watergate, their phones illegally tapped). Rather, the real scandal can be found by looking to those who were behind the hacking (or wire-tapping), in the first place, and to those who have been so eager to butcher the truth and assault the professional reputations of respected scientists for short-term political gain.


Two or three posters have consistently butchered the truth and assaulted the professional reputations of respected scientists.

Where I have taken a stand is to point this out and to push for the accusers to provide any evidence for their claims.

Take the time to reread the entire 8 pages of the thread Danny. See if you can find me making any claims about the science (apart from who published where and under what conditions). And I haven't called anyone names. I have commented that two discussants were not serious enough to warrant further discussion.

As far as research grants go, Danny, they are there regardless of your conclusions. When you apply for a research grant, you apply to investigate something. Nobody every applies to produce a conclusion. If I were a climate scientist and I got a grant to reconstruct temperature gradients over the Ellesmere Island (to pick an arbitrary example) I would be under no pressure to come up with any particular conclusion. That's just the way it works. Perhaps one day you'll read a research grant proposal for yourself.

I did say that you were either a fool or that you were being dishonest. This was stronger than necessary and I apologize. I stand behind the sentiment that your posts have been neither cogent nor faithful to evidence, but I should not have typed that phrase and I am sorry.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Nobody applies to produce a conclusion? Do you really believe this?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Danny has produced as solid of evidence as the faithful have.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-06 19:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
Nobody applies to produce a conclusion? Do you really believe this?


I have applied for research grants, and I assure you that it is true. Have you applied for research grants?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
Yes, the GREEN planet (or whatever color Canadian money is)
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2010-08-06 19:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
Nobody applies to produce a conclusion? Do you really believe this?


? to produce evidence or rhetoric in support of a presupposed conclusion?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Nosher
View Profile
Loyal user
261 Posts

Profile of Nosher
Quote:
On 2010-08-06 16:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well when you get him to the point where he must try to see something he does not agree with he mounts the high horse, changes goal posts, insists your experts are not qualified, are disgruntled and simpy do not know anything.



For some, self awareness is difficult to come by it seems.
Escapemaster-in-chief from all sorts of houdingplaces - Finnegans Wake
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16261 Posts

Profile of tommy
Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Said I am sure if I am more qualified to give an opinion of the reports in question than John at the Magic Café but for what its worth:

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.


By PATRICK J. MichaelS
Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.


.Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others—one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"

Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."

Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.

Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424......140.html
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16261 Posts

Profile of tommy
Why? Don't you like what he said?

Just askin'

PS

Seems like my learned friend John has deleated his last remark.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..9~10~11~12~13..24~25~26 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.3 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL