Earth in the Balance? Nope.
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 11:08 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:04:20 +0000, Tegger wrote: >>> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored >>> private doubts, >>> >> If they didn't harbor doubts, and try to match theory to data, they'd be >> as smug and useless as the deniers are. > > > > If anybody's "smug", it's the warming believers. > > They somehow believe that their science should be different from everybody > else's. Close. They don't believe it's different, they just reject anything else. I like the way they use the Flat Earthers as an example for the 'deniers', but the fact is, they should be referring to themselves. Obviously from discussions here they reject anything that goes against what Gore tells them to think, no matter how much evidence comes out to the contrary.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 11:37 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:31:34 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:02:56 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > >>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:02:46 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:41:29 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:02:15 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:48:58 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >>>>> <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Even the Climate Change crowd doesn't believe that. >>>>>> >>>>>>How do we know? >>>>>> >>>>>>Because if the Believers were truly convinced that there actually was >>>>>>a serious risk of imminent death and destruction from man-made >>>>>>Climate Change, they'd be very willing to listen to all arguments, >>>>>>whatever the source. >>>>>> >>>>>>They'd readily release all their raw data, all their statistical >>>>>>methodology, and all their computer modeling code. >>>>>> >>>>>>They'd carefully consider all the evidence presented by the skeptics, >>>>>>and would work eagerly with those who had differing opinions. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since the consequence of being wrong would be fatal, they would do >>>>>>all this because they would be terribly afraid they might be wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>The fact that they have not -- and won't -- do any of those things, >>>>>>can only have one meaning: That there is no risk to the earth, or the >>>>>>life upon it, from Climate Change. >>>>> >>>>> Plus, they are not all moving to Denver or towns higher in >>>>> altitude..... >>>> >>>>When does the exodus from FLA begin? >>>> >>>> >>> My house is on the water and I ain't movin.... >> >>What will you do when Florida is under 100 feet of water? >> >>Going to happen any minute now, you know. >> >> >> > Swim... I should have never sold my land on the Connecticut River. It's going to be oceanfront property some day. Of course, it probably will be but that has nothing to do with "Global Warming"...
From: tak on 13 Dec 2009 16:14 "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9CE05BAC82966tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:AwVUm.61778$Wd1.10832 > @newsfe15.iad: > >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails > > > > Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any other > field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. > > If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you (and > AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code is > EXPECTED. > > > And you do? LOL! Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant on global warming around here. You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? Cite your credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and articles criticized for Science Journals.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 16:40 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:14:35 -0500, tak wrote: > > "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message > news:Xns9CE05BAC82966tegger(a)208.90.168.18... >> "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:AwVUm.61778$Wd1.10832 >> @newsfe15.iad: >> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails >> >> >> >> Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any >> other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. >> >> If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you (and >> AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code is >> EXPECTED. >> >> >> > And you do? LOL! > > Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant on > global warming around here. > > You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? Cite your > credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and articles > criticized for Science Journals. He can't. He just thinks, and reads. He doesn't have an agenda he needs to push.
From: Tegger on 13 Dec 2009 18:39
"tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:1PcVm.96894$rE5.28256(a)newsfe08.iad: > > "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message > news:Xns9CE05BAC82966tegger(a)208.90.168.18... >> "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:AwVUm.61778$Wd1.10832 >> @newsfe15.iad: >> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails >> >> >> >> Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any >> other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. >> >> If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you >> (and AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code >> is EXPECTED. >> >> >> > And you do? LOL! Having read a tremendous amount of stuff about climate change (and having posted many of the URLs here), I have some idea of how the process works. Just two examples: Ross McKittrick and Steve McIntyre both asked for Michael Mann's raw data and for his modeling code so they could independently confirm his findings. Vincent Courtillot asked Phil Jones for the CRU's raw data, saying that he wanted to run the numbers using daily averages instead of the CRU's preferred monthly averages. In both cases, the scientists making the requests had no idea they'd be stonewalled and denied the way they were. The requesters simply assumed the data would be forthcoming as a matter of course, as it is in just about every other scientific endeavor. Refusal is simply /not done/. > > Gave a url (one of many) to use as counterpoint to the mindless rant > on global warming around here. And I've posted many of mine as well. > > You present yourself as the be all and end all of Science? > Cite your credentials, areas of expertise, articles published and > articles criticized for Science Journals. I have at least as many credentials in these matters as you. ------------------- I ask again, since you didn't bother to reply to this question in your last message: Suppose the CRU had actually been a private pharmaceutical company that was trying to convince the public and regulators that its new drug was safe. Suppose that this pharmaceutical company refused to release raw data, fudged the data they did have, guessed at the data they didn't have, conspired to destroy evidence, and demanded that you take them on faith and stop bugging them for information. How long do you think it would be before the media and government stomped all over them until they were flat as chewing-gum wrappers? -- Tegger |