Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:27 AM
 
281 posts, read 445,326 times
Reputation: 264

Advertisements

My degree is in physics, not in climate science or statistics, so I'll leave you with a comment I picked up from someone else (Gavin), much like you're doing:

Quote:
It was clearly not standard practice because Jones' WMO graph is the only one in 10 years AFAIK that showed it. And prior to Thursday, no-one was even aware of this one. I'm not a dogmatic type and I never say never, but my general rule is that captions should describe clearly what was done in a particular figure. The caption on this one was incomplete and had I seen this at the time, I would have suggested amending it. But why do you care so much about one 10 year old graph when there must have been hundreds of very similar graphs made by dozens of people in dozens of publications? If you want to talk about what the community has conferred over and decided to present to the world, the graphs in the IPCC report are much more relevant. Unless of course you want to start talking about some of the extreme fakery (not just a badly described captions) from Monckton, Michaels, Beck, Durkin, and the like. - gavin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2009, 10:29 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation « Watts Up With That?



This does not bode well for that hoax cabal.



I think I'll send off a couple emails to the Universities that employ Mann and a few others involved in this matter.

Where are our resident believers?

Probably under the covers, trying to understand how they could have been so duped.
Some of them get it and are doing everything they can to lessen the damage this will bring. Others do not and think they can fight this in the political realm and media spin.

Ive seen posts on RC by some who were suggesting they coordinate to downplay the event on a large scale in order to spin this as simply a non-issue and yet another attempt by "big oil" to falsely attack AGW.

These people will find themselves in a very bad position and will end up having to use the same spin to deflect support and involvement with the movement. Politics and media manipulation only work when you control the data, control the truth. They do not control such and no amount of spin will help them. This will end badly for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 11:24 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripley6174 View Post
My degree is in physics, not in climate science or statistics, so I'll leave you with a comment I picked up from someone else (Gavin), much like you're doing:
He is excusing it and doing so in a manner that will not even attempt to stand firm on his mention. I bet you didn't know that there are problems with the IPCC's graphs Gavin mentions as well? Again, being informed on the issue does wonders.

I have commented on the issue and explained it in my own words using the comments on the data as support. What have you done? Cut and paste. Cut and paste. And responses from implicated party members who offer only excuses that we are to take their word for it?

Good job. I think you have more in common with the field of climate science than you know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 11:31 AM
 
1,360 posts, read 1,936,544 times
Reputation: 500
Default Media outlets silent on Climategate

One of the biggest stories of the year and the main street media has been totally silent..except for FOX...Its unbelievable how corrupt the main street media has become...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,796,546 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripley6174 View Post
My degree is in physics, not in climate science or statistics, so I'll leave you with a comment I picked up from someone else (Gavin), much like you're doing:
Gavin and his website, realclimate.com are part of the cabal.

The website was set up by Mann, Jones and others to refute the "skeptics".

What kind of credibility does that leave them?

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt (broken link)

Quote:
Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC comments as a megaphone...

Last edited by sanrene; 11-24-2009 at 11:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 11:42 AM
 
281 posts, read 445,326 times
Reputation: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
He is excusing it and doing so in a manner that will not even attempt to stand firm on his mention. I bet you didn't know that there are problems with the IPCC's graphs Gavin mentions as well? Again, being informed on the issue does wonders.

I have commented on the issue and explained it in my own words using the comments on the data as support. What have you done? Cut and paste. Cut and paste. And responses from implicated party members who offer only excuses that we are to take their word for it?

Good job. I think you have more in common with the field of climate science than you know.
All you did was regurgitate what you read on climateaudit.org, with some snide remarks hinting toward the end of the mass conspiracy that is global warming thrown in here and there. I'm not a climate scientist, but I know enough about the subject to say that this whole thing will have about as much impact in the circle of climate scientists as the notion of little green men on Mars has on space exloration, despite what you might be hoping for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,796,546 times
Reputation: 7118
Still haven't read them, huh?

Btw, the emails have been verified to be genuine. Jones, Mann and others of the cabal have even tried to explain the "hide the decline", and the numerous instances of changed, deleted and oppressed data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 11:59 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripley6174 View Post
All you did was regurgitate what you read on climateaudit.org, with some snide remarks hinting toward the end of the mass conspiracy that is global warming thrown in here and there. I'm not a climate scientist, but I know enough about the subject to say that this whole thing will have about as much impact in the circle of climate scientists as the notion of little green men on Mars has on space exloration, despite what you might be hoping for.
Comment on it then? What is it you know? By all means, explain what it is that you know about the science that gives you this insight?

What research are you using? Whose research are you using?

By all means, you claim you "know enough", then please share this knowledge with us?

I will be waiting.

Let us have it please, we need to be shown the ways of our ignorance. You have the podium Mr. Ripley, educate us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 12:04 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,904,904 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Still haven't read them, huh?

Btw, the emails have been verified to be genuine. Jones, Mann and others of the cabal have even tried to explain the "hide the decline", and the numerous instances of changed, deleted and oppressed data.
Look at his responses, they are nothing short of fallacious in structure. he hasn't answered to any of the issues here and results to contesting posts simply by attacking the person and cut/pasting responses that simply wave off the questions.

All he knows about the issue is what he is fed at his talking point sites. This is why he will not even share any of his so called "understanding" of the issues. All talk, no walk. Just a pawn dupe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2009, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,796,546 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Look at his responses, they are nothing short of fallacious in structure. he hasn't answered to any of the issues here and results to contesting posts simply by attacking the person and cut/pasting responses that simply wave off the questions.

All he knows about the issue is what he is fed at his talking point sites. This is why he will not even share any of his so called "understanding" of the issues. All talk, no walk. Just a pawn dupe.
The funny thing; he puts up cut and pastes from the very people involved in the hoax, like Gavin from realclimate.com, part of the good old boy netword of unethical scientists.

Revkin tells me the NYT is working tireless on this story and has reported extensively on it......I see one story....his....I'm still waiting for that extensive list of stories.

Maybe this is one reason they are ignoring;

Quote:
Hi all,
......
i'd like your reaction/thoughts for story i'll write for next thursday's Times.
also, is there anything about the GRL paper forthcoming from Mc & Mc that warrants a response?
I can send you the Nature paper as pdf if you agree not to redistribute it (you know the embargo rules).
that ok?
thanks for getting in touch!
andy
Andy= allegedly Andy Revkin of the NYT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top