Climategate?

auerillo

The reason I am so reluctant to debate with you is that you have misinterpreted what I have said, then try to turn your misinterpretation of what I have said "against" the argument.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re being a little selective now. On the one hand you’re dismissing scientists in the media when they talk about swine flu, for example, but when a scientist has a ‘valid argument’ against the accepted view on climate change, that’s a different story.

Example 1; I never said that I was dismissing scientists

djpbarry wrote: »

Intolerance? The notion that sceptics of climate change are in some way victimised is a touch laughable.

Example 2; I never said anyone was being victimised.

It seems more important for you to "win" the argument rather than enjoy the debate and consider any aspects other than those which flatter and agree with your own views.

I mentioned the quotes from various people because they are interesting, and you seem to choose to ignore the substance of what is said, and only respond by accusing me of being "selective". It's a shame you can't consider what is said and respond to that, rather than attack the poster and ignore the substance, which is so much more interesting.

djpbarry wrote: »

It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.

So you say. But when I produce "evidence" in the form of quoting what many serious people have said, you ignore it on the grounds that you have decided that I am being "selective", and therefore it's ok to ignore it!

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say that the label ‘denier’ is reserved for those who, for example, refuse to accept that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, or that the global temperature is, on average, increasing.

It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.
Intolerance? The notion that sceptics of climate change are in some way victimised is a touch laughable.

A denier may be someone who does not believe that Global Warming is man made.

As a former scientist I was taught that it is the interpretation of the evidence that matters.

It is clear that any denier is totally victimised. Try getting a job in the myriad of Global Warming Quangos if you have an open mind.

One of the key reasons why anyone should be sceptical is the tirade of abuse that greets deniers. Science is & must always be about listening to all opinions.

Climate Change has been allowed to become a huge rollercoaster. No one can afford dissent. Just imagine the World reaction if it was proved that man made CO2 was not effecting temperatures. No one would ever believe Science or Government again. Anyone who dares to speak against the flow will be victimised.

hiwayman

Perhaps ? there's some common ground here, for both sides of the argument.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/06/moveover-climategate-heres-why-even-skeptics-should-support-the-climate-deal/

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I never said that I was dismissing scientists

Not in so many words, no. To clarify, maybe you could provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

auerillo wrote: »

I never said anyone was being victimised.

Again, not in so many words, no, you didn’t. You did however suggest that the “Yes side” display “intolerance” towards those who question some aspect of climate change. Perhaps you could explain how said intolerance manifests itself (preferably with an example)?

auerillo wrote: »

I mentioned the quotes from various people because they are interesting, and you seem to choose to ignore the substance of what is said...

I ignored them because a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, regardless of who is being quoted.

auerillo wrote: »

But when I produce "evidence" in the form of quoting what many serious people have said, you ignore it on the grounds that you have decided that I am being "selective", and therefore it's ok to ignore it!

It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.

auerillo

Discodog wrote: »

A denier may be someone who does not believe that Global Warming is man made.

Climate Change has been allowed to become a huge rollercoaster. No one can afford dissent. Just imagine the World reaction if it was proved that man made CO2 was not effecting temperatures. No one would ever believe Science or Government again. Anyone who dares to speak against the flow will be victimised.

I'd go further and have heard " denier" abuse being hurled at those who are unsure, as opposed to certain that global warming is man made.

Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; said “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

In my view, this is counter productive as many are put off by bully boy tactics which do nothing other than arise suspicion that they are tactics used as a smokescreen.

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

It is clear that any denier is totally victimised.

Examples?

Discodog wrote: »

Try getting a job in the myriad of Global Warming Quangos if you have an open mind.

‘Quangos’ such as?

Discodog wrote: »

One of the key reasons why anyone should be sceptical is the tirade of abuse that greets deniers.

Examples?

Discodog wrote: »

Just imagine the World reaction if it was proved that man made CO2 was not effecting temperatures. No one would ever believe Science or Government again.

Hmmm. Given that such a discovery would most likely come from the scientific community...

e04bf099

djpbarry wrote: »

Examples?

Pat Kenny was abused on his own show. If you deny that then you are a denier;)

He was lambasted by his guest John Gibbons for even listening to a geologist that didn't agree with the polemic. Gibbons also told Pat that the Australian's book was school-boy science. Unfortunately, he hadn't bothered to read and critique the book because it was school-boy science. Apparently, you need experts to pick apart school-boy science. But surely by definition, it should be easy to disect and destroy school-boy science, in which case the experts would not even be needed.

And this idiot journalist then turned on Pat Kenny (of whom I am no fan) for having him on the radio at all. But surely if somebody is a charlatton that recieves credence unjustifiably, then the best thing is to have a public debate, in which one can present their arguments as the slop you presume them to be.

There is a perfect example that thousands of people are perfectly aware of.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

There is a perfect example that thousands of people are perfectly aware of.

A perfect example of what exactly?

e04bf099

Do you answer every post with a question? I won't repeat myself. Read the thread over. You asked for an example of something and I gave you a prefectly obvious one.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

Not in so many words...
Again, not in so many words...
I ignored them because a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, regardless of who is being quoted.

"not in so many words" seems to agree that I didn't say it, and, obviously, I didn't mean it.

The people I quoted are repeated here;

auerillo wrote: »

Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

Professor Philip Stott, Dept of BioGeograhpy, University of London; “The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven”…” it’s become a great industry in itself, and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there’s be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work”

Professor Paul reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists.

Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree”…

…“People have decided you have to convince other people, that no scientist disagrees then you shouldn’t either. Whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace; “You see, I don’t even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, it’s a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level”.

Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite team Leader, NASA; “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding”

Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

You may decide they are quoted "out of context" and that I am being "selective" to avoid answering, or considering. Others may disagree.

djpbarry

e04bf099 wrote: »

You asked for an example of something and I gave you a prefectly obvious one.

If it was perfectly obvious, I wouldn’t be seeking clarification, would I? This is supposed to be an example where a “denier is totally victimised”? Or a “tirade of abuse that greets deniers”? So, something that happened on one of Pat Kenny’s shows involving John Gibbons is evidence of a concerted effort to victimise sceptics? At what point did either Kenny or Gibbons become authorities on climate science?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

"not in so many words" seems to agree that I didn't say it, and, obviously, I didn't mean it.

Maybe you could clarify and state what you did mean? Once again, I’ll ask you to provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

auerillo wrote: »

You may decide they are quoted "out of context" and that I am being "selective" to avoid answering, or considering.

I have decided nothing other than the fact that they are a bunch of quotes. Am I supposed to draw some other conclusion? What point are you attempting to convey by posting these quotes for a second time?

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could clarify and state what you did mean? Once again, I’ll ask you to provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?
I have decided nothing other than the fact that they are a bunch of quotes. Am I supposed to draw some other conclusion? What point are you attempting to convey by posting these quotes for a second time?

David Bellamy's views were dismissed because he has worked as a consultant for an oil company.

The opening speaker, the UN Chief Scientist at Copenhagen, referred to the "criminals" who had "stolen" emails. Some might regard them as heroes.

Our own Boards Weather Forum has many posters who have a very active interest in Meteorology. Many of them are very sceptical & their view of Climategate makes interesting reading.

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

David Bellamy's views were dismissed because he has worked as a consultant for an oil company.

As I have said many times before, David Bellamy’s views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.

Discodog wrote: »

The opening speaker, the UN Chief Scientist at Copenhagen, referred to the "criminals" who had "stolen" emails. Some might regard them as heroes.

Some might, but that does not make their actions any less criminal.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

As I have said many times before, David Bellamy’s views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.

can you list all his views and examples of the them not being based on facts??

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe you could clarify and state what you did mean? Once again, I’ll ask you to provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?
I have decided nothing other than the fact that they are a bunch of quotes. Am I supposed to draw some other conclusion? What point are you attempting to convey by posting these quotes for a second time?

The post wasn't just for you, but was to contribute to the debate. If you have decided that you want to ignore quotes from respected people, that's great, althought it doesn't actually contribute to the debate and merely serves as more evidence that you appear to ignore anything which doesn't agree with your own views.

Your position seems to be that man made global warming is unarguably a fact, and anyone who tries to argue or bring in other interesting evidence is wrong. And you appear to be able to say that without even considering any of the evidence anyone brings up. Even the opinions of eminent people like Professor John Christie, Professor Philip Stott, Professor Paul Reiter and Professor Richard Lindzen's are ignored. It's all part of a pattern where either the person is attacked as a smokescreen to avoid having to engage with their argument ( eg David Bellamy above) or just ignore entirely anyone or anything which may not agree with your view.

And I am sure that's what you will continue to do, falling into what De Bono calls the intelligence trap, all the time searching for reasons why you are right and ignoring anything to the contrary.

It's simply impossible to engage in an open debate with someone who appears to be so convinced that he is right, and I am sure others will make up their own mind as to why you have decided to ignore the opinions of Professor John Christie, Professor Philip Stott, Professor Paul Reiter and Professor Richard Lindzen.

Ask yourself if you are open to evidence which may question the current theory as to the reasons to global warming?

If the answer is yes, then you'll forgive me for observing that there doesn't appear to be much evidence for that here.

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

As I have said many times before, David Bellamy’s views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.
Some might, but that does not make their actions any less criminal.

They are not just dismissed as well you know.

Whistle blowing is not a criminal offence. The criminals are the ones that have deliberately lied.

As other posters have remarked you exemplify the climate change view. You could use this thread to validate your argument instead of questioning & dismissing alternate views. You ask questions but answer none.

I posted here because some clearly have an open mind but as you appear to be dominating any discussion it is pointless.

The climate change lobby used to try to convert the world to their view. Now this has changed to an attitude of arrogance & self righteousness which is making any doubters think again.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

can you list all his views and examples of the them not being based on facts??

The best example I can think of is his 2005 claim (in a letter to New Scientist) that 555 out of the 625 glaciers observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. This is somewhat at odds with the WGMS’ view of the current state of affairs (in Fluctuations of Glaciers, 2000-2005):

WGMS wrote:

Strong acceleration of glacier melting characterized the first five-year period of the 21st century.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

The post wasn't just for you...
...
...there doesn't appear to be much evidence for that here.

That’s a tremendously long-winded way of not answering a question. I’m going to remind you at this point that soap-boxing is against the rules of this forum.

Now, I’ll try one more time: could you provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

They are not just dismissed as well you know.

Yeah, they are. See the example I provided above.

Discodog wrote: »

Whistle blowing is not a criminal offence.

Hacking a server, stealing emails and subsequently posting them on the internet most certainly is a criminal offence. The legality of those actions is not up for discussion.

Discodog wrote: »

You could use this thread to validate your argument instead of questioning & dismissing alternate views. You ask questions but answer none.

What questions have I not answered?

Discodog wrote: »

I posted here because some clearly have an open mind but as you appear to be dominating any discussion it is pointless.

Yeah, look at me closing down threads and banning anyone who disagrees with me. No open discussion allowed around here. No sir.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

The best example I can think of is his 2005 claim (in a letter to New Scientist) that 555 out of the 625 glaciers observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. This is somewhat at odds with the WGMS’ view of the current state of affairs (in Fluctuations of Glaciers, 2000-2005):

that was a good un alright.... an oversight on his behalf....
what else is there????

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a tremendously long-winded way of not answering a question. I’m going to remind you at this point that soap-boxing is against the rules of this forum.

soap boxing..... actually I think auerillo was just making a point, maybe it will be proved incorrect maybe it won't...

just slightly OT..... soap boxing is not mentioned in the forum charter.....

Discodog

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a tremendously long-winded way of not answering a question. I’m going to remind you at this point that soap-boxing is against the rules of this forum.

Now, I’ll try one more time: could you provide an example of a scientist who had a ‘valid argument’ but who was dismissed “as being compromised”?

How can you have a "valid" argument when it is you & the Global Warming disciples who will decide whether it is valid or not. There is every likelihood that many "valid" arguments have been dismissed just like Earth at the centre of the Universe was dismissed. You are even calling some criminals just like the Inquisition. What is next the stake & the firewood ?.

Hiding behind the rules of a forum is hardly likely to convince people that you are chairing, what should be, an open debate. The Global Warming supporters need to get persuading instead of dictating.

If a genuine sceptic viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have increased their scepticism not reduced it.

e04bf099

Discodog wrote: »

If a genuine sceptic viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have increased their scepticism not reduced it.

... and if somebody on the fence viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have just created a new sceptic, not attained a new disciple;)

Discodog

e04bf099 wrote: »

... and if somebody on the fence viewed your comments on this thread I would suggest that you have just created a new sceptic, not attained a new disciple;)

Good. I am all for scepticism.

e04bf099

Discodog wrote: »

Good. I am all for scepticism.

sorry, that was clumsilly done. I was extending your comments about the mod, rather than commenting on your comments. Pointless post, I know:o

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

that was a good un alright.... an oversight on his behalf....
what else is there????

How about this one:

David Bellamy wrote:

The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest57.htm

djpbarry

Discodog wrote: »

How can you have a "valid" argument when it is you & the Global Warming disciples who will decide whether it is valid or not. There is every likelihood that many "valid" arguments have been dismissed...

Such as?

Discodog wrote: »

You are even calling some criminals just like the Inquisition.

No, I am referring to those who commit criminal acts, such as stealing data, as criminals.

Discodog wrote: »

Hiding behind the rules of a forum is hardly likely to convince people that you are chairing, what should be, an open debate.

The forum rules (and the general rules of the site) are there to ensure that open debate can take place. If you have an issue with the forum charter, this is not the place to discuss it.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

How about this one:

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest57.htm

Interesting considering your words about a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, but yet you are happy to use them to your benfit, when it suits you..........



I admit the guy has made one or two blunders in the past.... but thats no reason to dismiss him....

djpbarry wrote: »

I ignored them because a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, regardless of who is being quoted.
It doesn’t matter who says what. All that matters is the evidence that is presented.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

Interesting considering your words about a quote taken in isolation is relatively meaningless, but yet you are happy to use them to your benfit, when it suits you...

You did ask me to provide an example of an inaccurate claim he had made, did you not? I provided a link to the source so you could be sure it was not taken out of context.

robtri wrote: »

I admit the guy has made one or two blunders in the past.... but thats no reason to dismiss him....

I didn’t say we should dismiss him. I said his views are often dismissed because they are seldom based on fact.