GTW,

Private Company?  In order not to complicate the issue further I made no distinction.  The "company" in the case of the Climategate emails was a public entity.  Whether private or public the emails are considered company owned.

 

Dev,

Yes nicked, stolen theived, illegally obtained, or LEAKED from whom?  The point is that some were subject to FOI and an offense was committed by some scientists according to the ICO.

If you call a spade a spade what would you call those scientists?

Maliciously harrassed.

That does make things somewhat clearer S.C.! If you reject the science then your only inputs can be personal observation (a little localised in both time and geography) and unsubstantiated blogs/ideas by others?

Most of us here use 'peer reviewed papers' only (and occasionally rehashed 'extracts'?) because you can check (should you wish) the data and previous studies used to form the 'conclusion' (and not the absolute truth?).

We all must 'trust' to some extent or other lest we be trapped in a very shallow 'I Me, Mine' type of existence doubting all (except that which we choose to accept).

I'm good with the info I personally cull (my studies of the ice pack across the Arctic Basin by the Sat's available) and the papers I come across and try to digest, how else am I expected to grow in my understanding?

I'll just like to add also that we cannot make any reliable estimate of the sensitivity of the earths temperature to anthropogneic CO2.  You can't use a pix n mix attitude to arrive at a conclusion! 

I'll just like to add also that we cannot make any reliable estimate of the sensitivity of the earths temperature to anthropogneic CO2.  You can't use a pix n mix attitude to arrive at a conclusion! 

You just did...

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Gandalf said:

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response^.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

The irony in Gandalf's rant is quite remarkable, and just highlights the impossible task sceptics of AGW have, to engage in a serious discussion with those proponents of AGW. Another debate shut down! 

Serious discussion SC involves actually talking about science not hurling insults, you need to learn that. The science must be in the peer reviewed literature too as in all physical science topics that is the source of the current understanding of a subject and debate about it.

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

 You see the problem is that you are in no position to reject the science. It is known that the increased CO2 produces a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W m-2. . Doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a forcing of about 4 W m-2 which corresponds to a warming of about 1C without feedbacks. You will not find a physicist who doesn't accept that because it follows directly from the structure of the CO2 molecule

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Gandalf said:

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response^.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

The irony in Gandalf's rant is quite remarkable, and just highlights the impossible task sceptics of AGW have, to engage in a serious discussion with those proponents of AGW. Another debate shut down! 

Serious discussion SC involves actually talking about science not hurling insults, you need to learn that. The science must be in the peer reviewed literature too as in all physical science topics that is the source of the current understanding of a subject and debate about it.

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

 You see the problem is that you are in no position to reject the science. It is known that the increased CO2 produces a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W m-2. . Doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a forcing of about 4 W m-2 which corresponds to a warming of about 1C without feedbacks. You will not find a physicist who doesn't accept that because it follows directly from the structure of the CO2 molecule

Hey ! GTW,

Do you think the word 'hoax' in the thread title may pertain to those who are trying to paint current understasnding as such and does not involve 'current understanding' at all?

Makes more sense to me when I read the thread and title?

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Gandalf said:

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response^.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

The irony in Gandalf's rant is quite remarkable, and just highlights the impossible task sceptics of AGW have, to engage in a serious discussion with those proponents of AGW. Another debate shut down! 

Serious discussion SC involves actually talking about science not hurling insults, you need to learn that. The science must be in the peer reviewed literature too as in all physical science topics that is the source of the current understanding of a subject and debate about it.

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

 You see the problem is that you are in no position to reject the science. It is known that the increased CO2 produces a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W m-2. . Doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a forcing of about 4 W m-2 which corresponds to a warming of about 1C without feedbacks. You will not find a physicist who doesn't accept that because it follows directly from the structure of the CO2 molecule

Obviously your another one who suffers from selective reading, read the above post of mine. It's not about the laws of Physics Tom, it's about climate sensitivity and that my friend is something climate scientist are as clueless as any layman out there.

The laws of physics are critical to understanding AGW, the laws of physics tell us that AGW must be happening and at least contributing to the warming of the planet. The feedbacks require other laws eg Clausius Clapeyron relation but lets start with the basic radiative forcing by CO2

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

Wow

That should be held up as a classic for defining the completely unsustainable position of the denier.

I have detected an increasing desperation in your posts, SC.  This is just so patently rubbish that there is scarcely any merit in either the post or trying to debate it's contents (Polarwind take note)

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

Wow

That should be held up as a classic for defining the completely unsustainable position of the denier.

I have detected an increasing desperation in your posts, SC.  This is just so patently rubbish that there is scarcely any merit in either the post or trying to debate it's contents (Polarwind take note)

You are right Gandalf the post is nonsense, but I'm not sure what it has to do with polarwind's posts which, in my opinion, raised some very valid questions.

Hey ! GTW,

Do you think the word 'hoax' in the thread title may pertain to those who are trying to paint current understasnding as such and does not involve 'current understanding' at all?

Makes more sense to me when I read the thread and title?

You do wonder don't you?

I must admit I found Solar Cycles post a total revelation. 

I think this thread should be 'unstickied' and allowed to slip away quietly.  It is an anachronism and a reflection of some of the bizarre views that exist and can be seen all over the Internet.

Over the years here I have tried to find some common ground but every time we get close the denier/sceptic band pull away again.  First we got acceptance that there was warming occurring - now that has been challenged.  Then we get acceptance of the basic science - and then someone like SC challenges even that basic starting point.

Ho hum.

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

Wow

That should be held up as a classic for defining the completely unsustainable position of the denier.

I have detected an increasing desperation in your posts, SC.  This is just so patently rubbish that there is scarcely any merit in either the post or trying to debate it's contents (Polarwind take note)

You are right Gandalf the post is nonsense, but I'm not sure what it has to do with polarwind's posts which, in my opinion, raised some very valid questions.

Hi NS - that reference was only in relation to his questioning my posting style when responding to some of the bizarre comments that appear in here.

I'm all up for debate of the 'issues' that science brings us but , as with many other things in life, the more info you glean supporting a notion then the more likely you are to lend credence to it? I know that all change starts in one spot but I have not come across that 'spot' in as far as our manipulation of climate is concerned. I read a preview of a groups work into proving man's role in climate change over his expansion across the planet (and the changes he wrought) and when this paper goes live (in spring) we will be faced with paleo evidence of how easy it is to upset natures 'balance' (as if we can't see that all around us today?).

If deforestation and agriculture, over the last 8,000 years, is 'measurable in impact' then what of burning hundreds of paleo Forrest's since 1750?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html

Is all of this not an exercises in 'cause and effect'? If we are looking at a closed system (as near as damn) then how can we alter the balance and not expect that 'alteration' to generate change? Didn't Newton have something to say about a body staying still, or in permanent motion, until acted up on by some 'external force'?

That does make things somewhat clearer S.C.! If you reject the science then your only inputs can be personal observation (a little localised in both time and geography) and unsubstantiated blogs/ideas by others?

Most of us here use 'peer reviewed papers' only (and occasionally rehashed 'extracts'?) because you can check (should you wish) the data and previous studies used to form the 'conclusion' (and not the absolute truth?).

We all must 'trust' to some extent or other lest we be trapped in a very shallow 'I Me, Mine' type of existence doubting all (except that which we choose to accept).

I'm good with the info I personally cull (my studies of the ice pack across the Arctic Basin by the Sat's available) and the papers I come across and try to digest, how else am I expected to grow in my understanding?

Solar Cycles tells us he or she rejects the science.

I would suggest they start by reading the science, because they very clearly have not!!!

Cheers - John

That does make things somewhat clearer S.C.! If you reject the science then your only inputs can be personal observation (a little localised in both time and geography) and unsubstantiated blogs/ideas by others?

Most of us here use 'peer reviewed papers' only (and occasionally rehashed 'extracts'?) because you can check (should you wish) the data and previous studies used to form the 'conclusion' (and not the absolute truth?).

We all must 'trust' to some extent or other lest we be trapped in a very shallow 'I Me, Mine' type of existence doubting all (except that which we choose to accept).

I'm good with the info I personally cull (my studies of the ice pack across the Arctic Basin by the Sat's available) and the papers I come across and try to digest, how else am I expected to grow in my understanding?

If only that were true. Some of the biggest complaints from the sceptical camp and indeed the reason why many became sceptics, is that requests for the much of the data were refused. And because of this, scientists have been denied the right to check the findings of some of the AGW research. This is not at all acceptable and the data should be released to any scientist or competent person trying to repeat an analysis, or, indeed find fault with the research. That is after all what science is about, otherwise it will be no better than a religion.

Tiny amounts of the total mass of data were unavailable because it wasn't the scientist's concerned to release - it was data lent to them by countrys who put a embargo on such data. I'm amazed how hard that has been for some people to understand that...

But now most of that tiny amount of missing data is also available.

Anyway, you'll call for people like McIntyre and Watts to open up all their email boxes - just in case they're hiding some tiny amount of data? Why haven't we seen the notebooks people like Watts use? Why haven't we be able to go through McIntyre's dustbins looking for tiny bits of data he's 'hidden'? Well? I tell you such request are just as fatuous as those who claim the data is missing and the science a religion.

Solar Cycles tells us he or she rejects the science.

I would suggest they start by reading the science, because they very clearly have not!!!

 

Cheers - John

Ahh, but they don't need to read it - they know it's wrong. Nice circle isn't it....

Parts of this thread are starting to read like a meeting of Right-Wing-Echo-Chamber Victims Anonymous LOL!

On such: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/40018314#40018314

In other words, don't believe something just because you read it somewhere in the media

 

Cheers - John

Well that's good advice John but I would extend those questions beyond just the media. I think there are very reasonable grounds for debate about aspects of the peer review process which have been (deliberately?) ignored in favour of a set to over stolen e-mails.

The idea that to challenge or question a consensus is somehow 'right wing' makes me a little suspicious. Everything from every source should be questioned and debated, only that way lies the truth.

Indeed but in physical science there is correct and wrong not just opinion. I am unwilling to talk of left and right wing because scientists hold a very wide range of political view irrelevant to their science. The problem is though that an anti-science agenda does exist particularly from the USA and you see it in debates about evolution, climate change, pesticides, vaccination etc and this does seem to be right wing in its tone and it does seem to aflict the political fringe over here.

As for peer review it is carried out by humans but no-one has thought of a better system. Blog science contains often contains so many basic errors that a sift is needed or one would waste ones life reading it.

Parts of this thread are starting to read like a meeting of Right-Wing-Echo-Chamber Victims Anonymous LOL!

On such: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/40018314#40018314

In other words, don't believe something just because you read it somewhere in the media

 

Cheers - John

Well that's good advice John but I would extend those questions beyond just the media. I think there are very reasonable grounds for debate about aspects of the peer review process which have been (deliberately?) ignored in favour of a set to over stolen e-mails.

The idea that to challenge or question a consensus is somehow 'right wing' makes me a little suspicious. Everything from every source should be questioned and debated, only that way lies the truth.

Indeed but in physical science there is correct and wrong not just opinion. I am unwilling to talk of left and right wing because scientists hold a very wide range of political view irrelevant to their science. The problem is though that an anti-science agenda does exist particularly from the USA and you see it in debates about evolution, climate change, pesticides, vaccination etc and this does seem to be right wing in its tone and it does seem to aflict the political fringe over here.

As for peer review it is carried out by humans but no-one has thought of a better system. Blog science contains often contains so many basic errors that a sift is needed or one would waste ones life reading it.

That is exactly why Tom, I am so concerned that science should at all costs avoid making big forcasting errors. I can see it now, that the right wing religious crowd would make huge gains in diminishing the influence of science on society. That would be tragic. Short term political advantages of pushing extreme conjectures of AGW climate outcomes does not sit well with huge increases in religious influence should the conjectures be wrong by big margins.

And if it's right? And who is pushing extreme conjectures? No scientist (and I mean NO scientist) I can think of. A few extreme sceptic say scientists are pushing extreme views but you should be the last person to fall for such right wing claptrapery.

I think part of the problem for many is they do not understand how conservative much of science is with it's conclusions?

 Folk seem to read 'in all probability' or 'over 90% certain' and see a wrong thing and not an overly cautious person trying to tell their 'truth' the best that they are able?