PatsFanInVa

The echo chamber is once again abuzz, to judge by these threads, about how global warming is a "conspiracy" because there are a bunch of e-mails about making a cover image on a report convincing. We simultaneously hear about self-deputized hooverites with no actual law enforcement role, who declare themselves to be in possession of un-shredded files that should be shredded (and by the way, who openly declare themselves to be likely sources of dissemination of said unshredded information, by dint of refusal to turn said documents over to law enforcement -- if in fact the docs are what they are purported to be.)

Oddly enough, outside the echo chamber, these "stories" are treated as what they are: more flailing by the Rush/Beck/Palin alternate universe crowd. "I found an e-mail! HERE IT IS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!! I claim I found a trash bag... HERE IS A PICTURE OF A TRASH BAG..."

The difficulty I see is not that the real media are against these guys. The difficulty is that they're serial liars (and indignant ones at that.)

The echo chamber screams on the Web (mainly in clubby acronyms) that the "MSM" is quashing evidence against "MMGW"... yet many of those same people scream on the blog next door about Evolution being a hoax, and Carbon-, Uranium-, and Iridium-dating to be terribly flawed (as compared with the use of Babylonian creation stories, as translated and re-imagined by the Hebrews,) that actually date from before the "beginning of the world." And they shout we are supposed to have the same "debate" as to why we can't just treat one culture's literature as science...

We see the same flametards who truly believe their president was never born, screaming that some non-profit group was careless with privacy act information -- a non-profit they'd never heard of before it showed up in said president's associations.

Quite frankly, the right has been shoveling bullsh1t for so long, it's no wonder actual newsgathering operations -- as opposed to the Washington Times, a church newsletter -- are tired of their rants.

But then, I still think the moon landing happened

Discuss.

PFnV

Patriot_in_NY

Classic Post.................... Quick everybody....... look over here. Don't mind that elephant in the middle of the road.

I'm not one to get all conspiracy theorist on everyone and I personally don't give a rats azz about the "climate debate" (at least not when stacked up against other contemporary issues). But that said......... It's quite possible that there was some mixing of data and some potential fuzziness in the vaunted "peer review" process that went on with the whole "climate" debate numbers. While perhaps not the biggest deal out there, it's not exactly nothing either and warrants some serious discussion and review.

Patriot_in_NY

Uh OH.............. This is looking a little worse.

Ummmmm, I'm not a scientist or anything, but I am fairly sure if you can't have your data independently verified, it ain't science.

Like math, SCIENCE is hard.

PatsFanInVa

Wolf! Wolf!

From your linked article:
Note that the proponents of the conspiracy viewpoint are the same ones that insisted vehemently we need to take the administration's word for it that Iraq had WMDs... and were creaming their jeans over aerial photos of rectangles they insisted were "mobile labs," although there was no real reason to believe they were anything other than eighteen wheelers... or big pieces of plywood for that matter.

Well obviously either the entire underpinning of all established science is shaken to its foundations, or some guys at the University of East Anglia don't have paper notes and magnetic tapes after the data were already acquired digitally.

Boy add that to e-mails about a cover image, and the whole thing unravels!

The sky is falling!

Keep spinning guys.

PFnV

PatsFanInVa

Much more combative in the initial lead-in than the follow-up. But still I must point out the phrase is "elephant in the middle of the room." Unless you're trying to make some kind of combo-pack remark about my weight and the fact that I'm a moderate by our local standards.

PFnV

patsfan13

I don't know about moderate I don know you are certainly for fraud when it concerns policies you support, in spite of evidence.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

PatsFanInVa

I think you mean to say that you do know I am "certainly for fraud." Were that the case, I would support the premise that you evidence any behaviors -- other than board (and bored) addiction -- that recommend you as a moderator. Now, as a person, you may have a terrific disposition toward those interior states of mind that would recommend you for such a position, and you may personally be capable of much level-headed disinterested judgement, but the behavior and arguments I've observed on your part makes a mockery of said virtues.

That said, it is worth considering the beam in your own eye before examining the mote in mine, when declaring that I am "certainly for fraud." I, personally, take exception to that personal insult, and expect you -- if in fact you take your duties seriously -- to issue yourself an infraction.

Unless of course you were hedging your bets by appending the "n" but omitting the apostrophe and the "t" from the word "don't" -- in which you would be absolutely correct, in that I am not, in fact, in favor of fraud.

Once again, if your intent is to say that I personally favor fraud, please do your job and issue yourself an infraction.

Much love,

PFnV

Patriot_in_NY

Which ones are those?

Do you know anything about science? I admittedly know very little. I do know that EVERYTHING about science MUST be able to withstand the scrutiny of independent verification. Points are not just "assumed" unless others can take the data and come to their own independent conclusion that the the conclusions are correct.

That's been a scientific standard for years, so it seems quite convenient and odd that this data would be "lost", doncha think? Scientists making such claims, if they were confident in their findings, would not be so careless.

Like I said, I couldn't give two craps.......... Just saying your preemptive defense is funny and off-base.

Wolf! Wolf!

Patters

Realclimate.Org provides a series of links to raw data. Enoy.

RealClimate: Data Sources

Perhaps you or pf13 can provide a link to the raw data used by the skeptics.

patsfan13

Sure Patters a lot of the data now linked at RC as they attempt to do damage control, were used by the climate realist.

Of course these sources don't mean much since they weren't used to generate the data used by the IPCC to justify economic calamities like the proposed Copenhagen treaty.


I guess if you are caught cheating it is good to change the subject and obfuscate. I eagerly await the release of the code with the data-sets used to generate their climate models. Be sure to give the RC link when this occurs.

The story is now they massaged the data to making the tree ring proxies look reliable and allow the construction of the phony hockey stick by dropping the post 60 data. But lost the raw data used for this purpose. RC doesn't have that data either.

Looks looks Jones made good on his email threatening to destroy the raw data.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."