Time for the Deniers to apologise to the CRU?

[novaphile]

The results of the Parliamentary enquiry have been out for a couple of days now, and I'm frankly underwhelmed by the lack of apologies from the deniers.

Perhaps some of the worst offenders could use this thread to retract some of their venomous and vitriolic comments made about the scientists concerned?

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2010/2010-03-31-02.html

[lomiller]

Yeah but apparently they were part of the conspiracy all along, or something like that.

I mean the NRC report and multiple peer reviewed papers supporting Mann, Bradly Hughes 1998 and 1999 papers not only haven't triggered retractions they haven't even stopped the false claims regarding them.

[Poptech]

There is absolutely nothing to apologize for. The members of the parliamentary inquiry should apologize for the white wash.

Scientists Behaving Badly (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp) (The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009)

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63) (PDF) (United States Senate)
Climategate Analysis (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf) (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

[Poptech]

I mean the NRC report and multiple peer reviewed papers supporting Mann, Bradly Hughes 1998 and 1999 papers not only haven't triggered retractions they haven't even stopped the false claims regarding them.
MBH has been thoroughly discredited for the fraudulent works that they are,

What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About? (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf) (PDF)
Caspar and the Jesus paper (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/caspar_and_jesus.pdf) (PDF)

Hockey Stick - What is Normal? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LUHNYznNXI) (Video) (8min)

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/r27321306377t46n/) (PDF (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;306/5696/679) (PDF (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/vonStorchEtAl2004.pdf))
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/w152x48065n16q43/) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml) (PDF (http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/b277x817wj021671/) (PDF (http://www.klimarealistene.com/Holland%282007%29.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland

[lomiller]

Random link spams to woo sites don't help your case. the NRC report to congress and has been refuted by better the a dozen peer reviewed papers confirming the original results.

Oh that's right you don't believe in normal peer reviews journals like science and nature you think they are all fraudulent. :)

[Poptech]

Random link spams to woo sites don't help your case.
Randomly smearing peer-reviewed papers as "woo" or "spam" doesn't help your case.

Oh that's right you don't believe in normal peer reviews journals like science and nature you think they are all fraudulent. :)
What is the scientific procedure to determine what a normal peer-reviewed journal is? Please enlighten us more with your emotional arguments.

[lionking]

Tell me lomiller, what if a parliamentary committee had found against the CRU? I'm betting you would say "well, they're not scientists, why should I take notice of them".

[BenBurch]

But they didn't, did they?

[lionking]

Well hypothetical questions are often par for the course in these threads. Care to answer it?

[lionking]

I find it ironic that people who have spent so much time banging on about peer reviewed science latch on to a inquiry of politicians.

[Poptech]

I find it ironic that people who have spent so much time banging on about peer reviewed science latch on to a inquiry of politicians.
Since climategate has exposed the global warming scam for what it is - a manufactured crisis, the true believers are desperate to defend their religion against all heretics. The only problem is no number of parliamentary inquiries are going to put the cat back in the bag. Anyone intellectually honest could clearly see what was going on, which is why the massive public poll shift. Frauds like Mann and Jones will never be taken seriously again.

‘Climategate’: what a pointless investigation (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8368/) (Spiked, UK)
But the real question we should be asking is this: what was the point of the investigation? The House of Commons committee self-consciously refused to pose any probing questions, and its main aim seemed to be to ensure that the moral status of the current consensus on climate change remained intact.

Investigations that are meant to serve as a ‘corrective’ to people’s misguided or immoral sentiments used to be called rituals. And that is what this the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s ‘limited inquiry’ was mostly about: a ritualised pseudo-investigation aimed at correcting people’s allegedly backward views.

[BenBurch]

Lionking, as there was never any SCIENTIFIC issue here, just a trumped-up political one, what else is there to look at?

[Poptech]

there was never any SCIENTIFIC issue here, just a trumped-up political one, what else is there to look at?
Yes there was,

1. The divergence issue and cover up
2. The corruption of the peer-review process
3. The corruption of the IPCC reports
4. Failure to comply with FOIA requests

ect...

[A.A. Alfie]

And they haven't answered all those questions yet either.
In the main, the 'result' was around the FOI and protocols behind them, there is much more to be done and far greater scrutiny to be applied to the other questions.

I haven't read the whole report yet, but here it is..

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

[lionking]

Lionking, as there was never any SCIENTIFIC issue here, just a trumped-up political one, what else is there to look at?
Okay, so why celebrate a political result, like the OP does?

[Dancing David]

Why did so many people make so much of a non-issue to begin with?

[BenBurch]

Okay, so why celebrate a political result, like the OP does?

To get in the face of the jerks who trumped-up the issue in the first place.

They need to be smacked around a bit.

[Safe-Keeper]

The results of the Parliamentary enquiry have been out for a couple of days now, and I'm frankly underwhelmed by the lack of apologies from the deniers.

Perhaps some of the worst offenders could use this thread to retract some of their venomous and vitriolic comments made about the scientists concerned?/me has a rare psychic moment, and predicts that OP is right and that the deniers will pull a CT-er and say they're inonit.

[fredriks]

Since climategate has exposed the global warming scam for what it is - a manufactured crisis, the true believers are desperate to defend their religion against all heretics. The only problem is no number of parliamentary inquiries are going to put the cat back in the bag. Anyone intellectually honest could clearly see what was going on, which is why the massive public poll shift. Frauds like Mann and Jones will never be taken seriously again.


Good post. Perfect use of the words:
climategate
scam
manufactured crisis
believers
religion
heretics
intellectually honest
frauds

I am a little disappointed though that you didn't include warmerporno in your post.

I don't believe I have found a single global warming skeptic on any internet forum that it is actually possibly to take seriously. The arguments, use of words, knowledge about the issue, there bias etc almost immediately show what they really are.

[Molinaro]

I don't believe I have found a single global warming skeptic on any internet forum that it is actually possibly to take seriously. The arguments, use of words, knowledge about the issue, there bias etc almost immediately show what they really are.

I object to your use of the word almost.

[Nick Terry]

Good post. Perfect use of the words:
climategate
scam
manufactured crisis
believers
religion
heretics
intellectually honest
frauds

I am a little disappointed though that you didn't include warmerporno in your post.

I don't believe I have found a single global warming skeptic on any internet forum that it is actually possibly to take seriously. The arguments, use of words, knowledge about the issue, there bias etc almost immediately show what they really are.

If the sceptics are trying to influence people's opinions, they are failing extremely badly.

Speaking as a lurker in these threads without an especial dog in the fight and only a layman's understanding of the science, I can only inform the sceptics that their tactics are so reminiscent of how conspiracy theorists, woos and various brands of denialist argue that they undermine whatever points they are trying to make.

Like it or not, just as proper spelling, grammar, punctuation and a clear writing style matter when one is trying to put across and argument, so too does rhetoric and argumentation. The global warming sceptics' rhetoric and argumentation are both entirely repellent and thus counterproductive.

I'd single out a couple of sceptics for especial disapproval, but fear I might get infracted, but I think everyone knows exactly which two I mean.

[A.A. Alfie]

I am a little disappointed though that you didn't include warmerporno in your post.


Hey, "Warmerporn" is my word. :)

If the sceptics are trying to influence people's opinions, they are failing extremely badly.


Wrong (in part anyway)

In fact it is the warmer's tactics that are driving away the masses in droves through alarmism, lies, errors, money, greed, politicising of the issue etc.
We have a whole thread on that.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161176

[MattusMaximus]

There is absolutely nothing to apologize for. The members of the parliamentary inquiry should apologize for the white wash.

Scientists Behaving Badly (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp) (The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009)

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63) (PDF) (United States Senate)
Climategate Analysis (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf) (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

Aaaaand, right on cue... :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774747b777c3c3dce.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10850)

[Thunder]

There is absolutely nothing to apologize for. The members of the parliamentary inquiry should apologize for the white wash.


white wash= term used to describe an investigation that comes up with results that are disliked but certain people, even without a justification.

[Furcifer]

To get in the face of the jerks who trumped-up the issue in the first place.

They need to be smacked around a bit.

:D

My response to all of this remains: "OJ"

The legal process isn't always the best channel for getting at the truth. The law demands too much evidence and sometimes even asks the wrong questions to begin with.

The issue of climate change and who's responsible to what extent is sensitive to bias, omission and white lies. None of these really amount to the criminal charge of fraud.

[Poptech]

Aaaaand, right on cue...
Are religious or political beliefs a conspiracy?

[BenBurch]

Aaaaand, right on cue... :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774747b777c3c3dce.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10850)

My prediction is that he will deny it while at the same time re-inforcing the impression that he thinks its all some vast Illuminati Conspiracy.

[Poptech]

My prediction is that he will deny it while at the same time re-inforcing the impression that he thinks its all some vast Illuminati Conspiracy.
Prove that I ever supported an Illuminati conspiracy anywhere.

[Nick Terry]

Hey, "Warmerporn" is my word. :)



Wrong (in part anyway)

In fact it is the warmer's tactics that are driving away the masses in droves through alarmism, lies, errors, money, greed, politicising of the issue etc.
We have a whole thread on that.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161176

I wasn't referring to whatever you believe might be happening in the wider court of public opinion. I was referring to what happens here on this forum, in these threads, and giving the reaction of a lurker and non-participant in these discussions, to what transpires in these discussions.

Your side, the sceptics, does not come across well, and does not come across convincingly. That's purely a statement about argumentation and rhetoric. I am as I said, a lurker, layman and non-participant, so it might be wiser for you and other sceptics to reflect on your failure to convince me, than to go into what seems to be a predictable attack mode just because I have not agreed with you.

[A.A. Alfie]

I wasn't referring to whatever you believe might be happening in the wider court of public opinion. I was referring to what happens here on this forum, in these threads, and giving the reaction of a lurker and non-participant in these discussions, to what transpires in these discussions.

Fair enough. I actually thought you were discussing that 'wider public' also.

Your side, the sceptics, does not come across well, and does not come across convincingly. That's purely a statement about argumentation and rhetoric. I am as I said, a lurker, layman and non-participant, so it might be wiser for you and other sceptics to reflect on your failure to convince me, than to go into what seems to be a predictable attack mode just because I have not agreed with you.

Frankly, one needs to fight fire with fire at times. It is invariably the "warmer side" who go on the attack first. For clarification, just check the topic name of this thread (and many others). The intention is to provoke first and formost - so you will excuse me if I don't always turn the other cheek when I go by their rules of engagement.

[Hindmost]

I wasn't referring to whatever you believe might be happening in the wider court of public opinion. I was referring to what happens here on this forum, in these threads, and giving the reaction of a lurker and non-participant in these discussions, to what transpires in these discussions.

Your side, the sceptics, does not come across well, and does not come across convincingly. That's purely a statement about argumentation and rhetoric. I am as I said, a lurker, layman and non-participant, so it might be wiser for you and other sceptics to reflect on your failure to convince me, than to go into what seems to be a predictable attack mode just because I have not agreed with you.

You are supposed to put in the lurker popcorn thingy...like this.

:popcorn2 or :popcorn1

glenn

[Furcifer]

If the sceptics are trying to influence people's opinions, they are failing extremely badly.


I've never considered this a spectator sport. I suppose some people go to debates as a observer instead of a participant. I can't say I have.

As for the rest of your post I'd say you aren't as objective as you claim. Both sides employ the same tactics you would see in the 9/11 subforum. Trying to equate AGW with 9/11 is a spectacular fail as well. There may or may not be anything to climate scientists "conspiring", who really knows and who really cares? It's really about the data and the predictions based on the models the scientists have created. Is it complete and are they reliable enough to predict climate 10, 15, 100 out?

[MattusMaximus]

Are religious or political beliefs a conspiracy?

:popcorn6

[BenBurch]

Prove that I ever supported an Illuminati conspiracy anywhere.

Most intelligent people understand that "Illuminati conspiracy" is a metaphor for any vast secret conspiracy that is so vast and so secret as to be possible only in a parody like Wilson & Shea's Illuminatus! trilogy; a paranoid delusion that appears real only to cranks and the insane.

[CoolSceptic]

LOL.

Well if the UK parliament says it, it must be true.

Didn't they also say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be mobilised in 45 minutes? Oh yes, so they did. That turned out to be pretty much spot on, don't you think? /sarc

Nevertheless, lets take a quick look at the committee chair comments in the very article that you linked:

Committee Chair Phil Willis MP said, "What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."
Oh look, just what many sceptics have been demanding for years, while the alarmists dance their merry dance to avoid actually openly and transparently doing science.

Also note Phil Willis' words - "problems at CRU". He clearly acknowledges that these e-mails have shown there are problems that need to be resolved.

Not to menton the ICO. They seem pretty unhappy with what went on at UEA, and whilst the statute of limitations means there will be no court case, I don't think we will have heard the last of this either.

Oh and a bit more from the article linked by the OP:

"The leaked emails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics," said the committee in its report.

The failure of the university to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The university needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.
Ouch. And what did Dr Jones say?
We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately
Hmmm. Acton attempted to make similar claims, and was rebutted by the ICO on Jan 29 as follows:
Meanwhile, the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence.
[...]
1. As stated above, no decision notice has yet been issued and no alleged breaches have yet been put to the University for comment. That matter has yet to be addressed, but it will be over the coming months.
2. The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this.

No, given all of that, I'm pretty sure no apology is due.

[Nick Terry]

I've never considered this a spectator sport. I suppose some people go to debates as a observer instead of a participant. I can't say I have.

There are always more spectators/readers than participants in these forum discussions. Most members undoubtedly read many more threads than they post in, I know I do. Most also read a fair bit before signing up.

As for the rest of your post I'd say you aren't as objective as you claim.

I have not participated in the AGW threads here, but I *have* read more than a dozen of them. My non-participation makes me "objective" in the sense that I have no dog in the fight. The AGW skeptics are a different crowd to those who I might debate with in other sub-forums.

I am, of course, as subjective as anyone else, but not because of whatever ideological bias might be imputed to me. I just offered my view, which was that the AGW skeptics are not convincing me.

In my view, the skeptics fail to get their arguments across because of their poor rhetoric and argumentation. This applies in particular to a couple of thugs who are single-handedly doing a better job of promoting AGW by their inanity than their opponents could ever hope to achieve. That's my view. I suspect it is shared by others who lurk like me, but don't know for sure since nobody has put up a poll recently on the issue.

Your own style of argument is infinitely more effective than those of some of your fellow skeptics. I may not be entirely swayed by how you argue against your opponents, but I do not see the same cluster of symptoms that I notice in a number of other AGW skeptics.


Both sides employ the same tactics you would see in the 9/11 subforum. Trying to equate AGW with 9/11 is a spectacular fail as well.


I never mentioned 9/11. I said that the tactics used by climate skeptics on these threads resembled those used by conspiracy theorists, woos and denialists of various stripes. That might well include 9/11 Truthers, but is not identical to them. Truthers are in a league of their own for dishonesty and self-delusion.

What I see is a skeptical case being undermined by the over-eagerness of some of the skeptics.

There may or may not be anything to climate scientists "conspiring", who really knows and who really cares?

If that issue is of so little import to you, why is it seemingly so hard for the skeptics to apologise for blowing up the issue to the level it was blown up over the winter months?

I'm sure like many I was not especially following the debate until the publicity broke, and started paying more attention precisely because of it. To find the skeptics first crowing and then back-pedalling does not leave a very good impression.


It's really about the data and the predictions based on the models the scientists have created. Is it complete and are they reliable enough to predict climate 10, 15, 100 out?


That may be the wider debate, but it isn't the subject of this thread. I'm not interested in being drawn into either the minutiae or the slanging-matches.

I have merely posted my personal view, that some of the AGW skeptics are their own worst enemies. I don't expect it will make much of a difference to how they go about arguing their case, but it needed saying.

The debate here at JREF has clearly become very personalised (the mass infractions over the winter bear that out), and it may well be that some participants have forgotten they are slugging it out in public, where their posts can be read by whoever passes by, either from the JREF membership or pure lurkers who haven't even registered.

I won't be replying again in this thread for the time being.

[Furcifer]

There are always more spectators/readers than participants in these forum discussions. Most members undoubtedly read many more threads than they post in, I know I do. Most also read a fair bit before signing up.



I have not participated in the AGW threads here, but I *have* read more than a dozen of them. My non-participation makes me "objective" in the sense that I have no dog in the fight. The AGW skeptics are a different crowd to those who I might debate with in other sub-forums.

I am, of course, as subjective as anyone else, but not because of whatever ideological bias might be imputed to me. I just offered my view, which was that the AGW skeptics are not convincing me.

In my view, the skeptics fail to get their arguments across because of their poor rhetoric and argumentation. This applies in particular to a couple of thugs who are single-handedly doing a better job of promoting AGW by their inanity than their opponents could ever hope to achieve. That's my view. I suspect it is shared by others who lurk like me, but don't know for sure since nobody has put up a poll recently on the issue.

Your own style of argument is infinitely more effective than those of some of your fellow skeptics. I may not be entirely swayed by how you argue against your opponents, but I do not see the same cluster of symptoms that I notice in a number of other AGW skeptics.



I never mentioned 9/11. I said that the tactics used by climate skeptics on these threads resembled those used by conspiracy theorists, woos and denialists of various stripes. That might well include 9/11 Truthers, but is not identical to them. Truthers are in a league of their own for dishonesty and self-delusion.

What I see is a skeptical case being undermined by the over-eagerness of some of the skeptics.



If that issue is of so little import to you, why is it seemingly so hard for the skeptics to apologise for blowing up the issue to the level it was blown up over the winter months?

I'm sure like many I was not especially following the debate until the publicity broke, and started paying more attention precisely because of it. To find the skeptics first crowing and then back-pedalling does not leave a very good impression.



That may be the wider debate, but it isn't the subject of this thread. I'm not interested in being drawn into either the minutiae or the slanging-matches.

I have merely posted my personal view, that some of the AGW skeptics are their own worst enemies. I don't expect it will make much of a difference to how they go about arguing their case, but it needed saying.

The debate here at JREF has clearly become very personalised (the mass infractions over the winter bear that out), and it may well be that some participants have forgotten they are slugging it out in public, where their posts can be read by whoever passes by, either from the JREF membership or pure lurkers who haven't even registered.

I won't be replying again in this thread for the time being.

No problem, always welcome an open minded response. Sorry for the misinterpretation with 9/11, I must have misread it. I believe there is so much more to AGW than WTC but some can try to mislead people into believing it's the same.