Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheepish you imply there is nothing wrong with running a crooked website at realclimate.org?

Nothing you have posted makes me think realclimate.org is crooked. Again, nothing in this e-mail implies that they are planning anything dishonest as far as I can tell. Am I missing something?

Michael Man is stating above it's supposed neutral. From just that word, we can understand
that RealClimate.org is not neutral.

Not being neutral is very different from being dishonest.

Then he admits to holding up comments.
Ie. He and Gavin remove any critical comments/questions and post answers from fake data on the site!

He is asking them "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. " Moderating comments and answering questions can be done in a dishonest manner. But why are you assuming dishonesty? And where on earth do you get the idea that he is asking them to post fake data?

Mr. Sheepish in the sentence below who and why would there be wrong people?

Please feel free to use this code for your
own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into
the hands of the wrong people.

Isn't science meant to be openly shared and openly debated?

I completely agree that science should be shared and debated. You are even arguing that computer code should be shared. I agree with you, but that one is less clear. If someone publishes their algorithms and the data that they use, then that is sufficient to cross check anyone's work.

Once again, people have dredged through 15 years worth of e-mails and taken a lot of things out of context. The worst thing I see here is someone saying he is going to deliberately use old data because it makes the warming trend look artificially compelling. That is minor academic dishonesty, but not major on the level of fabricating/changing data. The second worst thing I have seen is scientists talking about withholding information from their critics. That's bad, but they are still publishing what they are doing and the data they use is publicly available as far as I am aware. Out of fifteen years worth of dirt this doesn't look so bad to me.

And once again, some of the allegations you posted are bordering on lies, as I have pointed out. They are certainly highly deceptive. If you truly believe that the evidence is clear, then I suggest you retract the false allegations and try harder to present your arguments in an honest manner in the future.

 

[asur]

Mr. Sheep wrote -

Moderating comments and answering questions can be done in a dishonest manner. But why are you assuming dishonesty?

I 've seen reports where scientists pose dissenting comments and that the RealClimate site doesn't post them.
Yet they will post erroneous comments supporting the man-made view!
It's only common sense after looking at the comments on the site that they operate that way.
Now here's a report on how they operate:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/real_climate_exposed.pdf

Ex: “On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..”

 

[PLC1]

Mr. Sheep wrote -

I 've seen reports where scientists pose dissenting comments and that the RealClimate site doesn't post them.
Yet they will post erroneous comments supporting the man-made view!
It's only common sense after looking at the comments on the site that they operate that way.
Now here's a report on how they operate:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/real_climate_exposed.pdf

Ex: “On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..”

Interestingly enough, that quote is by Robert Pielke Sr., who has also said this:

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers

Climatologists may disagree on details, but the basic findings of climate change theory remain the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke

 

[Gipper]

Hypocrites/Liberals/Progressives

 

[asur]

Mr Sheep - I already told you Wikipedia is not to be trusted.

As for this quote on Wikipedia- "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers"

This quote doesn't state that Pielke believes in CO2 induced global warming.
And it's his business if he does, as long as he doesn't distort the data and
run a crooked website like RealClimate.

The point is that he provides another source on the subject and has accused Real Climate aka FakeClimate of misinformation. This is what we were discussing above.

The unbiased reader can draw a conclusion for themselves.

 

[PLC1]

Mr Sheep - I already told you Wikipedia is not to be trusted.

As for this quote on Wikipedia- "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers"

This quote doesn't state that Pielke believes in CO2 induced global warming.
And it's his business if he does, as long as he doesn't distort the data and
run a crooked website like RealClimate.

The point is that he provides another source on the subject and has accused Real Climate aka FakeClimate of misinformation. This is what we were discussing above.

The unbiased reader can draw a conclusion for themselves.

Yes, they can, and the quote is pretty clear to anyone who is, in fact, unbiased.

 

[asur]

Never Trust Wikipedia

Why We Don't Trust Wikipedia in this class!

I've requested that students never use data or
statistics from Wikipedia, whenever another source exists. In the Global Warming case
there is even more reason for this restriction.


In September 2009,
the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after
finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute
unrelated to climate warming.

However most of the articles on Wikipedia concerning Global Warming are suspect
as they were monitored and manipulated by Connolley and his cohorts. As of this
time they have not been corrected!

Here's some interesting reading:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2009/10/revealing-realclimateorg-for-what-it.html


> > 3. What, if any steps are being taken to correct the bias injected into the
> > 5,428 articles authored or edited by William Connolley?

Wikipedia’s content is not centrally edited. Anybody may make any change to
Wikipedia, including undoing an edit by Mr. Connolley. But that change may be
undone in turn if others disagree, and any dispute has to be resolved through
discussion until a consensus is found. This is explained at
.

> > 4. Has William Connolley been removed as a Wikipedia administrator? If so who
> > has taken his place?

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s
administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges
while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added
to his article
().
Nobody has replaced him specifically, but there are more than a thousand other
administrators with very varied backgrounds.

> > 5. Would it be prudent in this case to now have an administrator who is
> > biased against AGW but closely monitored until this situation is fleshed out?

Administrators are elected by the Wikipedia community, and require a supermajority
of about 70% for election. The community prefers to elect administrators who
display no bias in any respect, but are committed to upholding Wikipedia’s
principle of “neutral point of view” ().

> > 5. If the current controls failed in this situation (a successful coordinated
> > attack by a group), then what steps are being taken to change the procedures
> > and processes to keep such usurpation from happening in the future?

Should the community conclude that its processes were indeed subverted by anybody
(and I am not aware of any such consensus emerging currently), it may decide to
change its policies, as explained at
.

Yours sincerely,
Pierre Grés


Let me be clear, only a Hoaxer would consider Wikipedia as a source
for scientific data.

We are in search of the truth in this class, not fiction!

 

[MrSheepish]

Yet they will post erroneous comments supporting the man-made view!

I have caught you making so many false accusations already. I keep thinking that maybe you'll have enough shame to not make more of them without providing evidence. Maybe someday.

Now here's a report on how they operate:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/blogwatch/real_climate_exposed.pdf


Ex: “On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..”

Gee Asur, you make it sound like you provided a reference to this quote. But the quote wasn't in the .pdf. Instead I had to hunt all over the internet. And when I found it and read it in-context, I discovered that he wasn't saying that he was disagreeing with RC about the science, he was saying that they edited out his comments because he was complaining about being threatened on a post in which this was completely off topic. He made the same comments on all kinds of blogs, and it was almost exactly the same regardless of the subject of the blog post. If what this guy says is true then it's a sign of a large conspiracy, but it's far more likely that he's full of crap, and I don't blame RC at all for editing out this kind of paranoid ranting when it's trying to discuss serious science.

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5069
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/264-phil-jones-resignation-inevitable
http://www.economist.com/user/JR+Wakefield/comments

I'm afraid that I don't have time to go in and fact-check the accusations made in your pdf. I've wasted too much time on accusations that are either clearly false or quite shaky as it is.

 

[MrSheepish]

Re: Never Trust Wikipedia

Why We Don't Trust Wikipedia in this class!

You know what I'm not going to do, I'm not going to bother reading this. First you tried to argue science, claiming that global warming science was untrustworthy because the temperature has gotten colder this decade and how can one can explain the cooling between the 1940s-1970s. I showed you that the first statement was wrong and showed you that the second has been explained.

You then left those topics and went on to accuse tons of people of dishonesty. You accused wikipedia of bias. You accused the CRU scientists of faking data, suppressing data, manipulating data, and expressing doubts about global warming. You accused RC of faking data and suppressing comments. I have spent a lot of time to check many of these claims, and have found that most of them are complete distortions or lies. When I point out that your accusations are false, you don't try to defend them, instead you go on to spew more accusations. Now we're back to Wikipedia.

You clearly don't care about understanding the truth, you are just dredging the internet for scandals that support your viewpoint, and posting them here without fact-checking them yourself. Maybe you'll randomly find a few that turn out to be true, but I'm not very hopeful. I wish I had the time to keep calling you on your falsehoods, but I don't. If you want to argue the facts of the science again I am game. If you want to keep slandering people then it's not worth my time to stop you, knock yourself out.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Mr. Sheepish SAID: You clearly don't care about understanding the truth, you are just dredging the internet for scandals that support your viewpoint, and posting them here without fact-checking them yourself. Maybe you'll randomly find a few that turn out to be true, but I'm not very hopeful. I wish I had the time to keep calling you on your falsehoods, but I don't. If you want to argue the facts of the science again I am game. If you want to keep slandering people then it's not worth my time to stop you, knock yourself out.

Welcome, WELCOME to the world of adults with whom you can clearly say;...you tried to keep the topic on POINT but he's bested the majority of us with his 'SMOKE & MIRRORS' and continual off topic - off point diatribes that just keep pulling the discussion away from the proof of LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS that ASUR is soooo good at posting.

You've been officially initiated into the 'WE TRIED BUT FAILED TO HAVE AN ADULT DISCUSSION WITH ASUR' and then put him on IGNORE to save the anguish and frustration from even reading his continual misquotes/misinformation and just blatant LIES that he tries to pass off as FACTS

 

[asur]

Mr. Sheep - This thread is about facts and finding the truth.
The study of Climate should be a science, but the liberal left
has transformed it into a political issue. The Global Warming hoaxers manipulate
and hide data, to satisfy their agenda. We will take the high ground instead!

- If you can't see RealClimate is crooked, then you don't want to see the truth.
You've tied to present data from Wikipedia, when you must know it's unreliable.

You present opinion or theory, not facts.
There have been no false accusations and remember the Hoaxers at the CRU are now
hiding the ClimateGate emails, making our job harder!



One reason I haven't ignored you totally
is for one redeeming comment you made:

I would still like to hear a liberal who is against greenhouse gas emissions
justify the Democratic opposition to nuclear power.

I'm not interested in their justification.

Regardless, we're here to discuss the facts and
class will resume soon. There is plenty of more material to cover.
We've got "fish to fry" as maw used to say!

 

[PLC1]

Mr. Sheep - This thread is about facts and finding the truth.
The study of Climate should be a science, but the liberal left
has transformed it into a political issue. The Global Warming hoaxers manipulate
and hide data, to satisfy their agenda. We will take the high ground instead!

- If you can't see RealClimate is crooked, then you don't want to see the truth.
You've tied to present data from Wikipedia, when you must know it's unreliable.

You present opinion or theory, not facts.
There have been no false accusations and remember the Hoaxers at the CRU are now
hiding the ClimateGate emails, making our job harder!



One reason I haven't ignored you totally
is for one redeeming comment you made:

I would still like to hear a liberal who is against greenhouse gas emissions
justify the Democratic opposition to nuclear power.

I'm not interested in their justification.

Regardless, we're here to discuss the facts and
class will resume soon. There is plenty of more material to cover.
We've got "fish to fry" as maw used to say!

speaking of facts, you seem to be ignoring several, including the one I posted earlier.

 

[asur]

PLC1 - If you are referring to the Robert Pielke Sr. comment, you are late.
Mr Sheep beat you to that point.

Like Mr. Sheep you change the subject.

It's irrelevant, because we were discussing how Pielke
has stated that RealClimate refuses to address
questions that poke holes in flawed data on the website.

Rather than explaining why they avoid questions and manipulate comments, you change the subject.

If a like-minded Pielke ran into this problem, just imagine what an actual dissenting
scientist might experience.

Now that we have examined portions of the ClimateGate emails we can conclude that
RealClimate is crooked. Let's view the email again.

Michael Mann - Quote “Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you
think would be helpful. 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.
On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened
through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include..”

and…..

“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had
cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Mann says seven years isn't significant?
Well you can't hide heat, so that's seven years of
declining global temperatures that begs an explanation!

Mann sounds like he's afraid to speak the truth as he states the scientific community will come down on him
if he posted the fact that global temperatures are dropping since 1998.
Now that just sounds bad!


Manipulating comments to suit an agenda is crooked, but RealClimate also makes up and hides
data. We have already examined proof in this thread!

 

[PLC1]

PLC1 - If you are referring to the Robert Pielke Sr. comment, you are late.
Mr Sheep beat you to that point.

Like Mr. Sheep you change the subject.

It's irrelevant, because we were discussing how Pielke
has stated that RealClimate refuses to address
questions that poke holes in flawed data on the website.

OK, so Pielke stated that RealClimate wouldn't address his questions that poke holes in the data that he himself says doesn't prove that anthropogenic climate change isn't real. As I said before, the scientists themselves may disagree on details, but not on the conclusion of the research that they have done.

If the website you cite doesn't want to discuss the data, that doesn't prove anything other than the webmaster sided against that particular scientist on a side issue. The main issue is not in dispute, not among the climatologists. It may be in dispute by the webmaster, by some pundits and politicians, but not among the scientists.

You can actually keep your conservative credentials without refuting scientific theories, you know. The issue of climate change really has nothing to do with any kind of liberal/conservative agenda.

 

[MrSheepish]

As I said, I feel no desire to go through and fact check any of your newest generation of accusations. There are a few things you said that I'm calling you on though.

You've tied to present data from Wikipedia, when you must know it's unreliable.

I never did that. I presented *NASA* data that was posted on Wikipedia. You threw a fit, so I then pointed you to the *same data* on NASA's website.

You present opinion or theory, not facts. There have been no false accusations

Sure seems like I caught some. Did you forget about them?

remember the Hoaxers at the CRU are now
hiding the ClimateGate emails, making our job harder!

You mean these emails? Damn you CRU, it took me more than thirty seconds to find those with Google. Stop making my job so hard!

To come back to the first statement of your post:

Mr. Sheep - This thread is about facts and finding the truth.
The study of Climate should be a science

Then try treating it like you care about the truth. Stop posting accusations you haven't verified and stop repeating the ones we've shown are wrong. And start responding to the problems we've found in your scientific claims or acknowledge that you were wrong.