Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Nov 20, 2009.

Page 4 of 18
  1. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,739
    Likes Received:
    23,921
    I love it. Absolutely love it.

    Swim amigo swim:lol:
     
    shane0911, Nov 24, 2009
    #31
  2. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Saving their jobs would be more accurate.
     
    SabanFan, Nov 24, 2009
    #32
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    it shows that scienctists are willing to ignore data in their papers:

    "Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down"

    but the dude clearly said he is removing data points i order to create the trend he wants.


    yes, a clever way of manipulating data to make it display the proper results.
     
    martin, Nov 24, 2009
    #33
  4. jibboo

    jibboo Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    13
    Clearly they thought the IPCC was full of bunk and not about science. It's worth quoting their own words again...

    It doesn't necessarily make their research invalid, but it calls it into question by anyone capable of thinking critically. If they wish to validate their conclusions... the best way would be to allow third-parties to duplicate their conclusions. This is about saving the planet from certain destruction, right?

    Unfortunately when two Canadian scientists attempted to get their data, they refused, and possibly broke the law to avoid dissimination:

    Good science doesn't hide behind a cloak of secrecy. It doesn't need to.
     
    jibboo, Nov 24, 2009
    #34
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Prove it. Show where the numbers were fudged. Good luck with that.
     
    red55, Nov 24, 2009
    #35
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    ""Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down""


    which part of removing data to alter the curve do you not understand?
     
    martin, Nov 24, 2009
    #36
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    That's not clear at all. And it's not a response to the question. Let me rephrase it. These emails show a couple scientists bitching in private emails about other scientists. It happens all the time. Now, the suggestion is that this somehow invalidates their scientific papers and that somehow this invalidates all of the science climate change. Show me evidence of this. The very idea is ludicrous. How would the emails of only a few researchers in a single institute invalidate the professional papers of hundreds of other experts. It doesn't.

    It only calls their 10-year-old informal email discussions into question. You seem disinclined to show where their scientific papers were in any way wrong. It's guilt by suggestion. If you can't attack their scientific conclusions, then attack their informal observations and suggest that it somehow make their published conclusions wrong. It just doesn't work that way.

    What are you referring to? If it's published then anyone can see their methodology, consider their results, and evaluate their conclusions. If the data hasn't been published yet, then no one has a right to it but it's authors until they publish. If the data is public then anyone can get access when the project is completed.
     
    red55, Nov 24, 2009
    #37
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    It's obviously an endorsement of it. You are really stretching now. Those quotes are nothing incriminating whatsoever. You only suggest it may be so.
     
    red55, Nov 24, 2009
    #38
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Unsubstantiated conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever. More crying from those who can't attack the actual science.
     
    red55, Nov 24, 2009
    #39
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    That's a person bitching in an email to a colleague about what he might do. You fail once more to produce a paper where he has done anything inappropriate.

    It's like someone trying to judge you professionally by your cute posts on Tigerforums. You've said things like "all dirty foreigners should be killed". In your job as an Episcopal bishop that wouldn't seem right. But your snide internet remarks don't mean that you preach it as gospel and should be judged by it professionally.
     
    red55, Nov 24, 2009
    #40
Page 4 of 18

Share This Page