Sure. I've got - and read - a copy of "The Climate Files"
formatting link
If you'd gone to that much trouble, you'd be aware that they weren't "withh olding" any evidence. Fred Pearce's book doesn't like the way they went aft er a denialist who'd managed to sneak a duff paper into the peer-reviewed l iterature, mainly by ignoring four referees reports, all of whom recommende d against publication, but Fred Pearce is an English science journal, which is to say not trained in science, and thus not trained to be serious about the quality of the scientific literature.
I don't happen to think that - in fact I've got a visceral dislike of that kind of dishonesty, having been properly trained to take the quality of sci entific publications seriously. If you check me out on scholar.google.com y ou will find that I've published several comments pointing out defects in p ublished scientific papers.
You've been reading too much denialist propaganda. Despite the best efforts of the denialist-inspired media, all the official investigations of the "s candal" didn't show up anything worst than some intemperate language.
Use the google groups search engine to find out what I've posted here on th e subject.
Using "Fred Pearce" as a search string, I can find one post in 2010, three in 2011 and one in 2012.
It was scandalous that private e-mails were stolen and made publicly access ible. What was exposed wasn't scandalous behaviour by the people whose e-ma ils were made public, but rather a thoroughly respectable cooperative effor t to expose scandalous behaviour by a denialist editor, which ended up with the entire editorial board of the duped journal resigning, which finally p rompted the journal's publisher to fire the offending editor.
You've been suckered - once again - by the denialist propaganda machine. Tr y to master critical thinking - you'll look a lot less stupid if you can ma nage it.
matic - the denialist propaganda machine knows that it can't come up with s tuff that can persuade anybody with a working critical fac
"Merchants of Doubt" pointed out that most of the first generation of denia lists - the people who denied that smoking was bad for your health - had be en exposed to the centrally planned economy of Soviet Russia when they were young and impressionable, and found that anything that interfered with the unfettered operation of the free market - even restrictions on selling stu ff that killed people - was too politically dangerous to be tolerated.
formatting link
James Arthur exhibits the same kind of thinking here from time to time. Unl ike Jim and John he can go to the trouble of digging out real evidence, but he's incapable of letting it change his mind.
It will be colder than "normal" this winter. I will relish the liberals whining over the cost of heating oil >:-]
Here, in AZ, it will be delightfully "Mediterranean" ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I'm bound to be biased against the kind of nitwit who can't even spell my n ame right, and who has been suckered by the denialist spin on the Climatega te non-event.
I'm bound to be biased against the whole denialist project, that distinguis hed itself by dragging out long-exploded papers and presenting them as cred ible when they were criticised into implausibility years ago.
I spent ten years (B.Sc, M.Sc, and Ph.D.)at university learning to tell goo d papers from bad papers, in part from trying to use them to shape my exper imental apparatus and the analysis of the data that I eventually got out of that gear when I finally got it working right, and I'm biased against plau sible rubbish - it wasted too much of my time until I got good at identifyi ng it.
Of course I don't usually call it "bias" - the words "judgement" and "exper ience" are what usually come to mind.
What I find so interesting about the AGW Evangelists is the way that they are so quick to resort to merely insulting any one who dares disagree.
AGW has all the aspects of late middle ages Catholicism - blind adherence to a set of (currently) un-proveable assertions and a complete refusal to discuss the issues openly. In the west our scientifically illiterate politicians have mainly swallowed the whole deal and it has now reached the stage where only fully signed up scientists or businesses get funded.
This thread started with a link to the Daily Mail article - the immediate response from the AGW Evangelists was to slag off the Daily Mail. Eventually this was followed up by a post with a token attempt to address the issue from Sloman - 28 words argument, 65 words insult.
I didn't spend 10 years at uni but I do know how I would judge a paper with a roughly 2:1 ratio of of pointless insults to discussion.
my name right, and who has been suckered by the denialist spin on the Clima tegate non-event.
guished itself by dragging out long-exploded papers and presenting them as credible when they were criticised into implausibility years ago.
good papers from bad papers, in part from trying to use them to shape my e xperimental apparatus and the analysis of the data that I eventually got ou t of that gear when I finally got it working right, and I'm biased against plausible rubbish - it wasted too much of my time until I got good at ident ifying it.
xperience" are what usually come to mind.
e.
My dislike of Greegor goes back quite a while. I'm not insulting him for di sagreeing with me, but for claiming that I ignored Climategate - I didn't - and for spelling my name wrong, which is a deliberate - if infantile - pro vocation (picked up from Jim Thompson, whom I've also got no reason to trea t sympathetically).
I'm perfectly happy to explain AGw politely - you'll find a pile of posts w here I've done just that, if you bother to search (though you'd need to sea rch under "anthropogenic global warming" as I don't much like the abbreviat ion).
The assertions are that we are pushing up the CO2 level in the atmosphere - which is provable - and that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's increasin g the average temperature of the earth, which is also provable.
The interesting question is how much more the temperature will rise if we k eep on burning fossil carbon and dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
The IPCC is about due to release their digest of current scientific opinion . The last set of figures put it at anything from 2.4C to 6.4C by the end o f this century.
This isn't a dogmatic assertion, and you can - if you want to - work throug h the reasoning. There's not a lot in common with Catholic dogmatism where the Pope is still held to be infallible on matters of faith and doctrine.
It's all published in the scientific literature. If you want to study the m atter in enough detail, you can write your own paper on the subject, and su bmit it for publication. If it's good enough and original enough - a big if - it will get through the peer-review process and get published.
ed
p
"Signed up?" To what, exactly? Nobody gets funded to do research without ma king a convincing proposal, but the requirement is to come up with a way of looking at the problem that is more or less original.
Syd Rumpo isn't a an anthropogenic global warming evangelist, and his comme nts about the Daily Mail reflect a widely held opinion that it's one of the less impressive examples of the UK's gutter press. Even the best of UK sci ence journalism isn't much good - I was amazed when I got to the Netherland s and found that Dutch science journalists rarely got their facts wrong - b ut the Daily Mail is close to the bottom of the UK pecking order.
The argument is solid, and nobody has bothered to try to disagree with it.
The insults were entirely justified - if you re-post a nonsense article you deserve an unambiguous reprimand.
The insults weren't pointless. If you lack the wit to recognise denialist p ropaganda for what it is, and re-post it rather than ignoring it, you deser ve to have your error pointed out. Jim Thompson and John Larkin aren't goin g to get educated in the process - this isn't the first time they've made i t clear that they haven't got a clue - but at least they've been labelled ( once again) as gullible suckers.
And it looks as if you too need to get hold of "Merchants of Doubt" and rea d it.
That was my response. I'm not an 'AGW Evangelist', I think it's probably happening but I don't care much. My point is simply that the UK Daily Mail is one of those tabloids which reverses its opinion on science matters with the changing of the wind, and quoting it weakens rather than bolsters an argument.
It is possible that non Brits would not realise this.
I see that you've failed to convince your fellow Australians as well. Your new PM is pledged to repeal your carbon tax.
You started off OK but when I got to the "If you lack the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is" I was convinced (even more) that it's just a religion substitute. Try swapping 'denialist' for 'unbeliever'.
It is possible that AGW is true - currently I'm not finding the way the case is made very compelling.
-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
l my name right, and who has been suckered by the denialist spin on the Cli mategate non-event.
inguished itself by dragging out long-exploded papers and presenting them a s credible when they were criticised into implausibility years ago.
ll good papers from bad papers, in part from trying to use them to shape my experimental apparatus and the analysis of the data that I eventually got out of that gear when I finally got it working right, and I'm biased agains t plausible rubbish - it wasted too much of my time until I got good at ide ntifying it.
"experience" are what usually come to mind.
gree.
r disagreeing with me, but for claiming that I ignored Climategate - I didn 't - and for spelling my name wrong, which is a deliberate - if infantile - provocation (picked up from Jim Thompson, whom I've also got no reason to treat sympathetically).
ts where I've done just that, if you bother to search (though you'd need to search under "anthropogenic global warming" as I don't much like the abbre viation).
re - which is provable - and that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's incre asing the average temperature of the earth, which is also provable.
we keep on burning fossil carbon and dumping even more CO2 into the atmosph ere.
nion. The last set of figures put it at anything from 2.4C to 6.4C by the e nd of this century.
rough the reasoning. There's not a lot in common with Catholic dogmatism wh ere the Pope is still held to be infallible on matters of faith and doctrin e.
he matter in enough detail, you can write your own paper on the subject, an d submit it for publication. If it's good enough and original enough - a bi g if - it will get through the peer-review process and get published.
lowed
d up
t making a convincing proposal, but the requirement is to come up with a wa y of looking at the problem that is more or less original.
omments about the Daily Mail reflect a widely held opinion that it's one of the less impressive examples of the UK's gutter press. Even the best of UK science journalism isn't much good - I was amazed when I got to the Nether lands and found that Dutch science journalists rarely got their facts wrong - but the Daily Mail is close to the bottom of the UK pecking order.
it.
you deserve an unambiguous reprimand.
st propaganda for what it is, and re-post it rather than ignoring it, you d eserve to have your error pointed out. Jim Thompson and John Larkin aren't going to get educated in the process - this isn't the first time they've ma de it clear that they haven't got a clue - but at least they've been labell ed (once again) as gullible suckers.
read it.
The Australian electorate was convinced of one thing only - that the previo us prime minister (Kevin Rudd)was a dangerous ego-maniac. Nobody likes the new prime minister much either, but while he did to his predecessor (Malcol m Turnbull, my MP) what Gillard did to Rudd and Rudd then did to Gillard) t his was back in 2009 when the party was in opposition. Malcolm Turnbull is a much more attractive candidate, but he's exhibited party loyalty, which R udd could never manage.
Tony Abbott in fact got rid of Turnbull because Malcolm Turnbull was bright enough to understand that anthropogenic global warming is real, and was pr epeared to go along with a carbon tax. This didn't sit well with the mining interests who fund the Liberal Party, and Abbott was happy enough to be th eir catspaw.
"Denialism" isn't heresy. It's well-funded campaign - by people who make mo ney out of extracting fossil carbon and selling it for fuel - to minimise t he credibility of the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming. Som e of the people who are telling you that the scientific case for anthropoge nic global warming is dubious started their careers by telling you that the scientific case for tobacco smoking harming your health was less than comp elling.
formatting link
tells the story. It's not the only book on the subject by any means, but it 's one of the best.
The well-funded denialist propaganda machine is expert at planting nonsense articles that fuel doubt in under-informed minds.
formatting link
Get better-informed. The evidence really is very persuasive when you know e nough to understand it.
Of equal credibility. William M Briggs claims that in 2007 somebody calimed that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. He doesn't tells us where this claim was made, or by whom .. He's made similar sorts of claims earlier
formatting link
/
The denialist propaganda machine hires people like him to plant implausible stories where gullible ignorami like Jim can find them. Whether William M Briggs is a liar-for-hire, or merely confused, is an open question - Jim Th ompson and John Larkin probably aren't being paid to re-post denialist prop aganda.
They do it because it has been carefully crafted to fit their narrow world- view, and reinforce the "all's best in this the best of all possible worlds " state of mind that complacent right-wing nitwits find most comfortable.
Realists recognise that we are all doomed - one way or another - and keep a n eye out for the most immediate threats. The fact that the sun is going to cook the earth in five billion years doesn't happen to be one of them.
I was just listening to a broadcast meeting re Syria in which a Brit speaker (a prof at King's College London) chuckled about the recent influence of a person that he thought most Americans might have never heard of.
I googled what thought I heard.. listened to it several times..
Edna Lebland ? Edna Leblanc ? Edna Leblend ?
But no soap. Finally asked a qualified foreigner to interpret and got the right answer. Any guesses from Rightpondia?
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
For "well-funded denialist propaganda machine" read "Devil".
I don't really know why I bothered to join in here - as I know a only too well from history and past experience the problem with religious fanatics is that they really do *believe* rather than know or understand.
"Get better-informed. The evidence really is very persuasive when you know enough to understand it." - apart from the rude and patronising way you express yourself, the sentiment you express here is once gain typical of religious zealotry - apparently you have been blessed with the true understanding and knowledge and any other interpretation of facts is, to you, incomprehensible.
But obviously hyperbole and exaggeration come easily to you - "Nobody likes the new prime minister much...." -
From
formatting link
- "The latest Newspoll survey, conducted exclusively for The Australian at the weekend, showed the Opposition Leader in front of Mr Rudd as the nation's preferred prime minister - 43 per cent to 41 per cent - after Mr Abbott's support rose three points and Mr Rudd's fell three points."
Now even allowing for the possibility that the Australian may have an axe to grind and the poll might be a in error by 20% or so, it doesn't look to me as if "Nobody likes ......" is any more than a wild unproven assertion.
So in the context of this discussion I think I might be forgiven for suggesting that *nothing* you say is worth listening to.
ell my name right, and who has been suckered by the denialist spin on the C limategate non-event.
stinguished itself by dragging out long-exploded papers and presenting them as credible when they were criticised into implausibility years ago.
tell good papers from bad papers, in part from trying to use them to shape my experimental apparatus and the analysis of the data that I eventually go t out of that gear when I finally got it working right, and I'm biased agai nst plausible rubbish - it wasted too much of my time until I got good at i dentifying it.
d "experience" are what usually come to mind.
for disagreeing with me, but for claiming that I ignored Climategate - I di dn't - and for spelling my name wrong, which is a deliberate - if infantile - provocation (picked up from Jim Thompson, whom I've also got no reason t o treat sympathetically).
osts where I've done just that, if you bother to search (though you'd need to search under "anthropogenic global warming" as I don't much like the abb reviation).
here - which is provable - and that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's inc reasing the average temperature of the earth, which is also provable.
f we keep on burning fossil carbon and dumping even more CO2 into the atmos phere.
pinion. The last set of figures put it at anything from 2.4C to 6.4C by the end of this century.
through the reasoning. There's not a lot in common with Catholic dogmatism where the Pope is still held to be infallible on matters of faith and doctr ine.
the matter in enough detail, you can write your own paper on the subject, and submit it for publication. If it's good enough and original enough - a big if - it will get through the peer-review process and get published.
out making a convincing proposal, but the requirement is to come up with a way of looking at the problem that is more or less original.
y
omments about the Daily Mail reflect a widely held opinion that it's one of the less impressive examples of the UK's gutter press. Even the best of UK science journalism isn't much good - I was amazed when I got to the Nether lands and found that Dutch science journalists rarely got their facts wrong - but the Daily Mail is close to the bottom of the UK pecking order.
h
le
er
list propaganda for what it is, and re-post it rather than ignoring it, you deserve to have your error pointed out. Jim Thompson and John Larkin aren' t going to get educated in the process - this isn't the first time they've made it clear that they haven't got a clue - but at least they've been labe lled (once again) as gullible suckers.
nd read it.
evious prime minister (Kevin Rudd) was a dangerous ego-maniac. Nobody likes the new prime minister much either, but while he did to his predecessor (M alcolm Turnbull, my MP) what Gillard did to Rudd and Rudd then did to Gilla rd) this was back in 2009 when the party was in opposition. Malcolm Turnbul l is a much more attractive candidate, but he's exhibited party loyalty, wh ich Rudd could never manage.
ight enough to understand that anthropogenic global warming is real, and wa s prepeared to go along with a carbon tax. This didn't sit well with the mi ning interests who fund the Liberal Party, and Abbott was happy enough to b e their catspaw.
or
e money out of extracting fossil carbon and selling it for fuel - to minimi se the credibility of the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming. Some of the people who are telling you that the scientific case for anthro pogenic global warming is dubious started their careers by telling you that the scientific case for tobacco smoking harming your health was less than compelling.
t it's one of the best.
e
ense articles that fuel doubt in under-informed minds.
ow enough to understand it.
You can't read the Devil's company accounts in the way Sourcewatch can read Exxon-Mobil's. Denialism is making money for Exxon-Mobil and a whole lot o f companies like it - short term profits now trump long term problems later .
Feel free to test my understanding. It may make you happier to believe that I'm some kind of religious fanatic, rather than an educated commentator, b ut I can't really see that I fit the fanatic image.
Other interpretations might well be perfectly comprehensible - feel free to advance one.
And I wasn't "blessed" with any kind of "true understanding". I ploughed th rough a lot of tolerably advanced physics and chemistry in the - possibly m isguided - pursuit of a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. when - many years late r - I came across the American Institute of Physics web-site on anthropogen ic global warming
formatting link
I was a bit surprised to find that I could follow the arguments - less surp rised that they made sense.
That's the point. He's the first opposition leader elected since polling be gan with an approval rating of less than 50%. Kevin Rudd was even less popu lar, which is what got Abbott elected despite his obvious flaws.
"The Australian" is a Murdoch newspaper, and every last one of the Murdoch newspapers was publishing concocted smear stories about Rudd in the run-up to the election. "Nobody likes ..." is a loose expression, but it roughly c aptures the national mood.
You can suggest it, but it says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It has been a nice warm day in Sydney - perhaps too warm for the time of th e year, since we had a very early bush-fire in the outer suburbs that had b urnt out two houses when I last looked at the news, and put a couple of fir e-fighter in hospital with smoke inhalation. It's just unusually warm weath er for late winter/early spring, not global warming ...
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.