Welcome to PatsFans.com

GW deniers, ACORN Stalkers: "Wolf! Wolf!"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    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 :rolleyes:

    Discuss.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009
  2. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

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

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009
  3. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    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. :singing:

    [​IMG]
     
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    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
     
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    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
     
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13

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

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009
  8. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    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!
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    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.
     
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13



    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.
     
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    I don't know why old data was thrown out in 1980s. One imagines that if there's a need to, it can be reverse engineered. At any rate, please send me links showing me that source info that the skeptics used. At least the mmgw believers are providing this info in a public way. It seems reasonable to hold the skeptics to the same standard they are holding the mmgw believers to.

    I do not know the specifics of the problems with tree ring data post 1960, but the issue has been around for quite a few years. I'm not sure what your point is, but I would guess that over time, the ability to measure temperatures has improved, and science has to compensate for this in all their analysis. Perhaps if you can post links to the raw data and info of the skeptics, we'll be able to compare it to that used by the mmgw believers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13




    I would suggest going to climate audit where McKittrick published his papers refuting the hockey stick they were clear about their sources and their source code.


    The only reason that the AGW alarmist are starting to come clean is due to a whistleblower revealing the emails and code and showing the dishonesty that has people in GB calling for criminal investigations. Why didn't they do this in the 80's

    BTW the raw data could have fitted on a single mag tape even witht he storage densities back then.
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13

    Here is a terrific observation from a reader of the article on the data being destroyed by the the CRU:

     
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,083
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    It's great they're coming clean and posting the data. They should have done so all along, and I congratulate the skeptics for forcing this to happen. Now, the skeptics will have to live up to the same standards.

    I think as far as understanding exactly what was thrown out, we are not yet there. The info you're getting is coming from the skeptics and their allies who have a vested interest in the defeat of global warming. They may not be presenting an accurate picture. East Anglia appears to say that it has most of the data and most of it has been released and that which hasn't been released cannot be released until East Anglia gets permission from the owners of that data:

    CRU climate data already ?over 95%? available (28 November) - University of East Anglia (UEA)

    My guess is that the same skeptics who criminally stole emails are now trying to game the public by distorting the facts, but I'll have to wait until I see something from a reasonable source.
     
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    I now take it that, in the echo chamber, it's considered established that the only data ever used in an IPCC report are the data derived from the raw data lost when they were reduced to ones and zeroes in this particular story. Is that in fact the current position of the right on this subject?

    I note, by the way, that we're in high dudgeon about the raw data being lost, essentially the chain of custody for this information being corrupted. I note simultaneously the cheerleading for exactly the same process as regards the supposedly ACORN-owned, non-shredded, material. Chain of custody is broken; it is not turned over to authorities for any kind of authentication. Yet we should just trust them on it.

    Same old Con man games.

    Wolf! Wolf!

    PFnV
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13


    Since you seem to be technically illiterate, I will try to clarify the issue.

    Mann published the original "hockey stick" graph, That has been in IPCC reports and Algores AGW alarm film. This graph was a reflection of the climate models that claimed that more CO2 would cause and global crisis and runaway warming. There was a set of data used to construct this graph. This data was 'corrected' and 'smoothed', then used in the climate models used by IPCC for their estimates of future climate changes due to human activity.

    People who felt CO2 wasn't the driver of the climate asked to see the data, both raw and 'corrected' and the code used to generate the graphs that wiped out the MWP and show a sharp spike up in Global temps recently. THe AGW community refused for YEARS to release any of their data and none of their source Code.

    Ross McKittrick and Steve McIntyre Did a statistical analysis of the Mann Hockey Stick Graph and found out that even a random data set would produce a hockey stick. The AGW community attacked M&M saying among other things that they didn't have the read data. Later Briffa did another analysis showing warming. This is the graph that excluded tree ring data to 'hide the decline' with the post 1960 tree ring proxies. Again the people wanting open access to the data and were rebuffed. In the emails from the CRU jones even said he would rather the data be destroyed than release it for inspection.

    Now with the 'raw data' used for these graphs destroyed (ie the dog ate my homework excuse). We will never know HOW the data was scrubbed and manipulated.


    RC releasing link raw data sets that had nothing to do with the analysis by IPCC, Mann and Briffa is irrelevant unless MAnn and Briffa redo their analysis with other raw data and release the methods for scrubbing the data and the code from their analysis.




    Of course in both cases the people involved in fraud are trying to hide/destroy that exposes their fraud. ACORN doing a midnight data dump before Investigators from the State of Ca show up, and CRU losing data that would allow open inspection of their data and method (you know that old scientific method thing. BTW the CRU raw data wasn't corrupted it was destroyed.

    Nice of you to trust the people destroying information while covering up possible fraud.
     
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13

  18. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    Translation: I am angry that you do not agree with me. Therefore, you are "illiterate." How's that reading of the rules on personal insults working out for you, "moderator"?

    To clarify: Al Gore is two names. The "alarm film" in question won the Academy Award for best documentary. Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming.

    Mann, on the other hand, is not mentioned in the story you linked to. Rather, it focuses on the University of East Anglia's storage of data electronically, and the loss of the raw data, which was on magnetic tape and paper.

    Your linked story does nothing to demonstrate a lack of anthropogenic global warming. It demonstrates that some scientists at UEA took paper notes and magnetic tapes and stuck them in a computer.

    We all know what the "hockey stick graph" is. Is this the technical part? You so smarrt...

    Oh this is the technical part? It reads more like apologetics for why some of these people believe they are morally justified in illegally stealing and publishing private correspondence - and of course, in as out-of-context ways as they can manage, in order to make morons post their new "scientific expertise" on every website they can find.

    What you've actually got is the McKittrick/McIntyre "analysis," which made their peers primarily burst out laughing (at, not with), versus the preponderance of work on the subject. It's not a secret that the tree ring data post-1960 diverges, nor was it in the 1980s.

    RealClimate: The CRU hack

    Because unlike your heroes, I respect intellectual property rights and the rules PatsFans enforces (usually when people in the center or to its left post at length,) I really have no choice but to leave you with this link.

    I know you're smarter than working climatologists are, especially about climate science. But it's worth a read.

    [more blah blah blah about how you don't think Real Climate having an established page of raw data is important, and an accusation that they only posted it in response to this particular hacking incident. If there's a point in there, it's not worth the time.]

    Who said it was corrupted?

    The obvious hypocrisy here is that you have hackers stealing private communications between working scientists, picking out juicy phrases for consumption by gullible shills, and publishing them for said political purpose. The best possible "smoking gun"-looking quotes are spoonfed for that purpose. For example, one hears that they applied a "trick" of not plotting tree-ring data post-1960. As pointed out in the Real Climate article on context, linked above, the word "trick" can be used as solving a technical (not political) problem, just as (my addition), the word "scheme" is used rather than "plan" to describe pensions in the UK. That does not make them "evil schemes" or "ponzi schemes" or "schemes for world domination." It makes the word something that means one thing in one context, and another thing in another. I am sure if you stole an e-mail from one of their administrators that says "the scheme is coming along quite well, and should be fully funded in 2010," and you didn't like that person, you could illegally publish the stolen e-mail and get your right-wing cronies in a lather about your "proof" that SOMETHING big is nearly finished, when in fact he would be saying a pension plan has enough money to pay future obligations.

    So let's get this straight. Patsfans.com supports the integrity of intellectual property rights, but you personally believe there is no such thing.

    The privacy rights of those whose information (supposedly) should have been shredded by ACORN and was not, is paramount while ACORN is in possession of the documents, unlike the privacy rights of the owners of said e-mails.

    The privacy rights of those whose info should have been shredded all disappear once the documents are supposedly in the possession of the dumpster divers, so long as they are right-wing dumpster divers.

    Then transparency is the issue, freedom of information, not ownership of information! We must be transparent!!!

    The only fraud here is your evident belief that you ever apply a single set of criteria. Your stated arguments reverse from issue to issue to suit the agenda of the right, as does your understanding of the rules of this forum.

    I will give you this, though: you are utterly transparent.

    Kudos :)

    PFnV
     
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,870
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +239 / 8 / -13

    The people at Real Climate are the people who are perpetrating the fraud. Going to them for comments on McKitrick and McIntyre is like going to Bill Ayers about whether the Weathermen were terrorist.


    Concerning Privacy, how do you know the leak wasn't done by an iunsider disgusted by the fraud being done instead of science? Do you have proof the hack was from the 'outside' ?


    Exposing fraud is a noble pursuit not a crime. After all the fraud was committed using taxpayers money both here and in the UK.


    To the issue of IP this data wasn't commercial content, it was done using public money at taxpayer supported institutions. Under the scientific method the norm is to publish data and methods for the purpose of open exchange. You seem to be unaware of this.

    Einstein didn't hide his equations and ask everyone to take his word about special relativity.


    By calling you technically wasn't an insult since you seem to have no science training based on you posts. and lack of understanding of the issue.

    Save you whining.
     
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,136
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +533 / 6 / -2

    Biggest ponzi scheme going. Would make Bernie Madoff look like the homeless guy you see at Maverick Station, holding a used coffee cup.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>