you knew it had to happen: Climategate 2.0

dogtowner

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
from the folks who gave you Climategate 1.0

just in time for the two year anniversary AND the upcoming IPCC confab

a few tidbits to chew on from the first 5000 emails to be trickled out from the cache of 220k !

<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]


<1611> Carter: It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.


<2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]


<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.


<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.


<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.


<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause [...]
​
Click to expand...

it gets better and better !

(bolds from the article, not me)
 
Werbung:
DogPants said:
In other words, you have not actually looked at these quotes in context and therefore cannot actually formulate a reasonable interpretation of what is being said.

Well, when you have the real text in a format that we can look at together, let me know. Thank you.
Click to expand...


the snips were excellent examples of where context does not matter.

you have all you need to read the 5000k documents.
 
dogtowner said:
the snips were excellent examples of where context does not matter.
Click to expand...

There is no way of knowing that without looking at the context.

Take the first quote:

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary"

Let's say the context was this:

Some climate deniers claim that "observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous." Now, concerning the recent budget issues and how it will affect layoffs, "we need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary".

Then it says almost the exact opposite.
 
DogPants said:
There is no way of knowing that without looking at the context.

Take the first quote:

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary"

Let's say the context was this:

Some climate deniers claim that "observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous." Now, concerning the recent budget issues and how it will affect layoffs, "we need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary".

Then it says almost the exact opposite.
Click to expand...


'climate denier claims' does not equal 'wealth of studies'unless you need it to.

You could attempt to spin the meaning of "the cause" but thats a minor point relative to the science based ones.
 
dogtowner said:
'climate denier claims' does not equal 'wealth of studies'unless you need it to.

You could attempt to spin the meaning of "the cause" but thats a minor point relative to the science based ones.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how your post addresses the issue of context, which is what I am discussing.
 
DogPants said:
I have no idea how your post addresses the issue of context, which is what I am discussing.
Click to expand...


the snip you mention discusses where a single study is selected to support this aspect of the larger perspective when there are a number of other studies signalling the opposite. skeptic claims are not studies.

you are attempting to craft a scenario that contradicts the information in the snip.
 
dogtowner said:
the snip you mention discusses where a single study is selected to support this aspect of the larger perspective when there are a number of other studies signalling the opposite. skeptic claims are not studies.
Click to expand...

That is what it seems to say, without any context.

you are attempting to craft a scenario that contradicts the information in the snip.
Click to expand...

Not quite. I am attempting to craft a scenario that contradicts the way you interpreted the snip. I am doing it by providing context. This is to show you that the context can change the meaning of the snip.
 
Werbung:
Stalin said:
There never was a "climategate"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Self-interest non-science cooked up by dinosaur energy company shills.

Even the rockefellers are taking their cash out of CO2 emissions into renewables.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-...-oil-investments-to-reinvest-in-renew/5761966

Stalin
Fighting fascists on the East Ukrainian Front
Click to expand...
If the government is giving money away people will take it. Why do you think pols keep their death grip on this nonsense ? Lots of pockets to line with silver.
 
Back
Top