Translate

Monday, November 28, 2011

Another Scandal Out of East Anglia University: Newly-Released Climategate E-Mails

Hat tip to Front Page Magazine, and a hat tip to Squid for alerting me to this.

Remember that scandal a couple of years back from East Anglia University in the UK, where all those e-mails revealed that the so-called scientists were cooking the books for the UN?


"Uhhhh.....yeaaaaah."

Well, on November 22, more e-mails were released that show Phil Jones (head of the university's Climate Research Unit) and others were making it up. The below article was written in Front Page Magazine by Tait Trussell.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2/

Keep in mind that the result of that research spun out of E. Anglia was.....




A Nobel Prize for Big Al.

And just who was it in the US Department of Energy involved with Jones et al?

In spite of all that came out then and what has come out now, those of us who are called "Climate Sceptics" are considered by the elite liberals to be extremist wack jobs if we say, "Hold on a minute before we turn the world upside down, shut down our economy, and transfer our wealth and freedom to the UN and God only knows who or what else to solve a problem that may not even exist."

Just who are the extremists, anyway? You can start with the two dopes pictured above (not the one in the bib overalls).

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "scandal" was a non-event, and the scientists at East Anglia were cleared of wrongdoing.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/east-anglia-climate-scientists-l.html

Considering that your source isn't aware of the facts regarding the original incident, it throws the current "scandal" into serious question.

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia also has a pretty thorough article - with multiple sources - on why this "scandal" was not much of a scandal at all.

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

Gary Fouse said...

I don't recall any "clearing" of the people involved. Considering the wording of the previous emails and the wording in this latest batch, how do you clear that up?

Anonymous said...

You did not read the links.

Squid said...

@ anonymous,

Consider who was doiing the "clearing". Is this a science magazine that published the pseudo-science rubbish and the one that refused to publish authors who had opposing views. There is a site that has at least 900 articles that reveal the wrmer climate science being flawed. More information will come from the second email dump, which will point to the U.S. Department of Energy as a participating partner in "climategate".

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

I read one. The Wikipedia link did not come up. In the other, I was not impressed.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Try this.

As for the answer to Squid's question: no.

Squid said...

@ Lance,

First of all, Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed journal. Second, any clown or agency with an agenda can modify the Wiki post. Many of the modifications are not by real scientists. I offer you a chance to look at 900 peer reviewed, scientific articles that conclude that man made global warming is not happening. These are the articles that seem to not get into the Wiki. I hope you have time to read some of them.


Art Horn webpage:
http://www.theartofweather.com/default.html

LINK: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Squid

Gary Fouse said...

Squid,

I wish I had a buck every time Lance preached "peer reviewed" to me when I questioned global warming. Now he throws a wikipedia entry at us.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Figures you two would miss the point. I did offer a Wikipedia entry, but I pointed out that it contained a number of sources that you should check out.

Of course, that would involve reading something other than propaganda that supports your predetermined world view. Frontpagemag is apparently an impeccable source for no other reason than the fact that you already agree with it.

As for Squid, it only took a quick search to see that his link has been debunked - with several scientists saying that the article has misrepresented their information.

Of course, I could point out the study that 97% of active, publishing climatologists support the theory but this is clearly a fact-free zone.

And I still have yet to see Gary even define what Global Warming is - and I bet that Squid can't either. They don't know what it is - but they know that they don't believe it. Oh, and then Miggie will say that I'm nit-picking again.

So, let's sum up:

On my side? 97% of climatologists, including those at NASA.

On your side? A bunch of out-of-context quotes from a non-scandal where several different organizations confirmed that East Anglia did not, in fact, do what you think they did. Oh, and a link that's been debunked - quite thoroughly.

Andrew said...

Lance the nonsense off the Carbon Brief has been completely refuted,

Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers

"In Part II of his desperate attack on the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list, Christian lists "comments" from three authors without providing the question he asked them. Based on his false statements about why papers were included on the list, the question was likely based on a strawman argument intended to mislead the authors. This tactic has been tried in the past by alarmists since asking a legitimate question based on the truth would not get the response they hoped for. All the papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW alarm defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." It is made explicitly clear in the disclaimer that the list has nothing to do with any of the personal positions of the authors,

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm.
"

Gary Fouse said...

A bit over my head, but Andrew seems to know what he is talking about.

Andrew said...

Gary, the 900+ peer-reviewed papers were compiled to support skeptic arguments against man-made global warming AND various catastrophic claims alarmists make about global warming.

For instance alarmists may claim that Tornadoes or Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming. So on the list papers are included that say they are not getting worse.

Now technically these papers do not make any direct argument against man-made global warming but do support skeptic arguments against man-made global warming ALARM.

The link Lance provided claiming to "debunk" the list included responses from three of the authors on the list asking them if they or their 3 papers can be used to argued against man-made global warming. In relation to their 3 papers this is the wrong question to ask and NOT why they were included on the list.

When you argue with someone and present an argument that the other person never made but falsely imply they did it is called a "strawman" argument.

Gary Fouse said...

Strawman! That is what Lance always accuses me of using.

Andrew said...

Fallacy: Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

- Person A has position X.
- Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.