World Politics

[CentralCaliBike]

I looked at your links. One is an editorial, the other a blog by a guy who is 'right about everything' and refuses to call Al Gore by his name.

So I take it you read that there are a number of other emails that do talk about how to prevent the public and opposing scientific community from learning about nagative data, as well as to actively prevent scientists access to journals if they presented contrary evidence on global warming?

 

[Cobblestones]

So I take it you read that there are a number of other emails that do talk about how to prevent the public and opposing scientific community from learning about nagative data, as well as to actively prevent scientists access to journals if they presented contrary evidence on global warming?

Journalism 101: What is the evidence that all the emails are genuine? Even if they are genuine, what is the evidence that the authors acted the way as indicated in the emails? For instance, was the editor replaced, the journal shunned?

Anyway, are you familiar with the academic publishing system, peer review, editors etc.? Actually, this seems to me the weakest point of them all. A lot of journals let you publish anything you want for a small fee. In issues called conference proceedings. Basically you can organize a conference, invite people to participate (for a fee) and use part of the fees to pay a journal to produce a whole issue devoted to essentially non-refereed conference proceedings (journal articles) written by the participants.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Journalism 101: What is the evidence that all the emails are genuine? Even if they are genuine, what is the evidence that the authors acted the way as indicated in the emails? For instance, was the editor replaced, the journal shunned?

Anyway, are you familiar with the academic publishing system, peer review, editors etc.? Actually, this seems to me the weakest point of them all. A lot of journals let you publish anything you want for a small fee. In issues called conference proceedings. Basically you can organize a conference, invite people to participate (for a fee) and use part of the fees to pay a journal to produce a whole issue devoted to essentially non-refereed conference proceedings (journal articles) written by the participants.

That is why I wondered about your post of a blog that suggested there is nothing to the emails less than 24 hours after the news story broke - so far, the authors of some of the emails have admitted ownership so to speak but the full picture is not likely to be known for a number of months.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Ok, here we go again. Let's analyze what you are actually saying, because your reply seems to ignore most of the arguments made, is littered with vague and obtuse statements, absent sources, irrelevant information and fails to address the topic 'whether or not global warming is exposed as a hoax'.

Some interesting quotes: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."


AND

"“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

LASTLY FOR NOW

"There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?""

All three of the preceding quotes were from the links provided on page 106 of this thread.

1)Why do you refer to the Freedom of Information Act?

If you are interested:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Journalism 101: What is the evidence that all the emails are genuine? Even if they are genuine, what is the evidence that the authors acted the way as indicated in the emails? For instance, was the editor replaced, the journal shunned?

This was the response I was predicting a couple of pages back

Anyway, are you familiar with the academic publishing system, peer review, editors etc.?

Actually I am - prior to my current employment I worked as a graduate research assistant - (I recently found out I received some unwarranted acknowledgment by the former Dean of my law school for the assistance I gave her); and, while an undergrad, had a paper that I wrote with three other students published and presented (nothing earth shattering - just a small experiment on human territoriality).

 

[Cobblestones]

That is why I wondered about your post of a blog that suggested there is nothing to the emails less than 24 hours after the news story broke - so far, the authors of some of the emails have admitted ownership so to speak but the full picture is not likely to be known for a number of months.

'My' blog says there's nothing to the emails, because so far, there's nothing which is of any importance to the Global Warming hypothesis. Now, I think you agree with that, so the quote from 'my' blog:

Still: I don't know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming

seems pretty accurate, doesn't it? Do us a favor and resurrect this matter when there's actual something of importance to it, but right now, there's nothing to warrant the noise on the wingnut websites.

Anyway, it's about 1000 emails and 50 documents. It wouldn't take long to go through them all, in particular not when it's online and hundreds or thousands of people look through it. I think we have seen the potentially most damming quotes already, and it's a big yawn.

 

[Cobblestones]

This was the response I was predicting a couple of pages back



Actually I am - prior to my current employment I worked as a graduate research assistant - (I recently found out I received some unwarranted acknowledgment by the former Dean of my law school for the assistance I gave her); and, while an undergrad, had a paper that I wrote with three other students published and presented (nothing earth shattering - just a small experiment on human territoriality).

So you predicted the response? Good for you, it means you grasp some basic rules of journalism (unlike the blogger you've linked to).

About your publishing experience: it's not in science, I don't know how it works with law journals, but if it's any similar, you'll agree with what I wrote.

 

[Bala Verde]

If you are interested:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1

I didn't ask 'where is it?'. I asked (politely

1)Why do you refer to the Freedom of Information Act?

 

[Hugh Januss]

None of this stuff is going to convince anybody who believes the theory of global warming anymore than the crowd that doesn't has been convinced by any of the good science that supports it.
In short we can all argue once again until we are blue in the finger tips and it won't change a thing.

 

[derailleur]

Ya like him? Ya don't?

Like him.

Besides his realistic view of the world and honest expression of the facts, he looks like he'd be a decent roadie.

 

[Laszlo]

You are correct in my opinion; people are generally set in their ways- even if one side completely convinced everyone else to change their views it wouldn't make a shread of difference in the real world- all the more reason I think to keep things civil here and a mere exchange of ideas

 

[Anonymous]

None of this stuff is going to convince anybody who believes the theory of global warming anymore than the crowd that doesn't has been convinced by any of the good science that supports it.
In short we can all argue once again until we are blue in the finger tips and it won't change a thing.

Of course. Facts don't mean anything today, one way or another. It's all spin.

 

[Bala Verde]

Of course. Facts don't mean anything today, one way or another. It's all spin.

And even on that we will not agree j/k

Check out Jean Baudrillard and 'hyperreality'...

 

[buckwheat]

Let's analyze your reply to my statement, supported by a number of arguments, on gun control now.

1) You first choose to ignore all of the arguments I made. There is nothing to dispute or even engage with those arguments, which makes me think you either don't bother to deal with them (separately), or you haven't (yet) thought of any way to deal with them.

2) Then you refer to the US bill of rights, without really stating why you refer to the US BoR. Hence, making an educated guess, I would infer that your hidden assumption is that one cannot question the Constitution. This could explain why you choose to ignore my arguments, because it should be of no importance anyway.

3) Then you assume I am in favor of the US Bill of Rights, quite possibly inferred from my previous statements on civil & human rights issues. At face value, that's like confusing someone who is in favor of health care for someone who thus necessarily favors a public run health care system.

To be in favor of civil & human rights issues, is not logically the same as favoring a specific document, such as the US Constitution. I.e. "All Civil Rights are US Constitutional rights (meaning enshrined in the US constitution)" is not the same as its inverse "All US Constitutional rights are Civil Rights"; Similarly, "All dogs are mammals" is not reversible to "All mammals are dogs"

To be clear, I have no special preference for/against the US variant.

If I brought it up, it must have been in relation to my perceived ambivalence of 'conservatives' towards the(ir, as in US) Bill of Rights. I.e. making special pleas to allow torture, unfair trials, while remaining unrelenting proponents of the second amendment, seems to be inconsistent for 'conservatives' (those who want to 'preserve') who are so in favor of the 'fundamental value' of that document.

4) Then you proceed and tell me to have a look at



- you provide no evidence of anything really. You merely use an exhortation that I compare figures you have not provided a source for, while not even drawing your own conclusion or indicating what they are supposed to demonstrate. It's like arguing that:

"smurfs are blue! Now you go check it, and you'll see I am right"

Talking about vagueness... I can only guess what you are hinting at. To be honest, that's not the best way to support statements.

- Only in parenthesis you qualify the statement with reference to gun laws. you leave completely implicit what you really mean and why you enter this information.

So I am going to have to guess, in good faith as is courtesy in debates when one is unsure of another's intended meaning, and try to connect it to the topic:

- The use of parenthesis of a qualification make me somehow think that it's not really relevant to the preceded statement. So when I omit it, it'll make something like this: "homicide rates in the most liberal voting areas of the United States are higher as compared to rates in the most conservative areas"(????)

Hence, may I infer that this could be an appeal to sentimentality, i.e. leaving implicit but trying to allude to a sentiment based on the idea that '(political) liberals are in fact murderers, as 'demonstrated' by the 'higher homicide rates in liberal voting areas'?

- Or are you trying to say that 'those (generally liberal voters) against gun control' are 'those that misuse the existing right to bear arms most, given the homicide rates in their voting areas'.

In either case, it would be a 'poisoning the well' type of argument. The messenger is evil, hence his statements are to be distrusted.

- Now I'll include the qualification in parenthesis 'and most limited gun control laws' which could, but not necessarily needs to, refer to 'the most conservative [voting areas]'(?). Are you thus saying that 'conservative voting areas always have more liberal gun laws, while showing lower homicide rates, whereas liberal voting areas always have more conservative gun laws, while showing higher homicide rates'?

That seems to be a fallacy of the post-hoc, ergo propter hoc type. 'Because of this, therefore this.'

Anyway, in absence of any compelling evidence, as well as (intentional?) vagueness of your statements, combined with logical fallacies, I am inclined to consider your post insufficiently qualified to really argue in favor of liberal gun laws.

A quick summary of your posts as of late. So far I have experienced that you tend to:

- ignore (most) arguments
- omit to support your opinions with either arguments or sources
- refer to sources whose headline/titles seemingly supports your opinion, while not seeming to know what was actually said in the article. Some sources even contradicted your opinion.
- debunk/support arguments or statements via logical fallacies (poisoning the well; hasty generalizations; slippery slopes; post-hoc, ergo propter hoc) and (intentional?) vagueness in what you really want to say.

Very Beckian 'vague & sentimental', not very Burkean...

He won. Look at how much effort you had to expend to see the truth catch up to lies.

His/their entire mis and disinformation campaign is for one purpose. Paying lower taxes no matter what. That's it.

 

[Anonymous]

He won. Look at how much effort you had to expend to see the truth catch up to lies.

His/their entire mis and disinformation campaign is for one purpose. Paying lower taxes no matter what. That's it.

Right out of the 'rules for radicals' palybook. Yawn.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Let's analyze your reply to my statement, supported by a number of arguments, on gun control now.

...

2) Then you refer to the US bill of rights, without really stating why you refer to the US BoR. Hence, making an educated guess, I would infer that your hidden assumption is that one cannot question the Constitution. This could explain why you choose to ignore my arguments, because it should be of no importance anyway.

I referred to the Bill of Rights because it contains the Second Amendment. I never doubted that you only support the Constitution when you believe the current interpretation supports your ideology, and are more than willing to toss it when it does not.

Anyway, in absence of any compelling evidence, as well as (intentional?) vagueness of your statements, combined with logical fallacies, I am inclined to consider your post insufficiently qualified to really argue in favor of liberal gun laws.

There is an internet letter out that suggested your chances of getting murdered in a county that voted democratic in 2000 was about 6 times higher than a county that voted republican - I figured it was a hoax and did a little fact checking - turns out I was right, however, it also appears that there is a statistical difference of 6.5 murders per 100,000 in counties that voted democratic and 4.1 murders per 100,000 in counties that voted republican (adjusted nationally from an individual county rate of 5.2 democratic and 3.3 republican). http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp

Whether you favor gun control or not this should not be a surprise - locations that have dense populations, tend to have higher crime rates that ones with lower populations. Also, denser populations in the United States tend to vote democratic. It is not hard to see where this logic is going.

I am not suggesting that murderers are Democrats - I figure an extremely small percentage have any voting history at all - I do believe that the majority of voters in confined urban areas think they can legislate against crime with gun control laws, it does not seem to be working.

Realizing that the Cato Institute is probably considered bigoted and narrow minded by most on the left, I thought I would post this for some ridicule:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa109/pa109index.html

It has all the data and background a person could want, if they were willing to read.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I didn't ask 'where is it?'. I asked (politely

Because the global warming proponents were aware of the act in the UK and apparently decided to ignore it and prevent access to requested information.

"In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"



"At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Just curious how this thread got tagged "Fascism alive and well"? Seems a little like a personal attack on those posting here to me. Of course I hear the similar comments often when I prosecute someone (usually the charge is murder) from the defense bar so have learned to ignore it generally.

 

[Bala Verde]

Because the global warming proponents were aware of the act in the UK and apparently decided to ignore it and prevent access to requested information.

"In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"



"At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

2 quotes, 1 name (Mr. Jones) in relation to the UK FoI act, the others are affiliated with (private?) institutions in the US. That's hardly a case of "the global warming proponents", more a case of hasty generalization.

First question would then be: Is Mr. Jones indeed part of a public institution in the UK, and (not or) would all the information he keeps be covered under the UK FoI act? The FoI Act states:

(2)
For the purposes of this Act, information is held by a public authority if—
(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person, or
(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

So one can ask whether or not Mr. Jones holds information on behalf of the authority?

Subsequently, has the request to release the info been made appropriately, and where these legitimate requests (i.e obstruction of someones work by repeatedly requesting info is prohibited under the Act)?

Next, you allege that 'they' (who is in fact a singular individual, Mr. Jones) ignored it. Did he? The quote only reveals that he was 'getting hassled'. Then you state that he ultimately did not provide it. Again there is zero to little proof (in the quotes) that he did not ultimately provide the requested information. Again, the question remains if he even had to release that information.

And if it was actual information pertaining to his research, people would have found out by now that he was manipulating his research (IMO)...

In any case, if Mr. Jones did not comply with the FoI Act and he purposely deleted information AFTER (not BEFORE) the request was made to release that specific piece of information, he committed a criminal offense.

In no way however does his 'failure to release any information' impact on dissenting scientists' opportunities to do their own research and prove their thesis/disprove the thesis about global warming.

 

[Anonymous]

They are in the war room spinning the hell out of this story. I predict that this will not slow down the global warming agenda one bit.. In fact they will scream even louder. Isolate your opponent and marginalize him.

They will attempt to destroy 1) the hacking, 2) the hacker and 3) any media outlet that reports the story. Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, written in 1971

Alinsky's rules include:

"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."

"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

"The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."

"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)

"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying "******" on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

Does anyone think it to be a coincidence that the only news outlet talking about this was Fox? Now one would think that this would be red-meat to any number of investigative reporters... I mean the magnitude of this hoax is just stunning. But, we have an elected President who the press had no interest in vetting, so why change now?

Anyone feel sorry for Jeffrey Imelt and G.E. for basically betting the company's future on products to combat global warming? Imelt, GE, NBC, MSNBC... tools to the highest degree.

Now go and reflect on the methods people like Karl Rove and Ben Wren use in campaigns, and tell me how they are any different. In fact, you'd think Rove and Alinsky were born of the same mother. I mean, look at the rhetoric about having terrorists tried in court in NY and compare the usage of language to the dictates above. Kind of seems like Alinsky is the father of Republican rhetoric...or maybe he was just codifying for the left what was already practiced by politicians for the last...oh...history of politics.

Seems like he needed to spell out skullduggery to the newly active left of that period in history, where it appears this type of thing is the native language of people like Rove and Carville.

The Alinsky thing in relation to Obama is just a manifestation of what Alinsky said to do, only propagated by the other side. How ironic...

 

[CentralCaliBike]

In no way however does his 'failure to release any information' impact on dissenting scientists' opportunities to do their own research and prove their thesis/disprove the thesis about global warming.

It is interesting that what has been mentioned does not concern you at all about the ethics and legitimacy of the scientists favoring global warming - you are not alone as a check of the AP, Reuters, and the UPI did not turn up anything about the hacking or early commentary. While I am sure that could just be a sign of cautious journalism, I would think they should at least mention the basics since it is an issue that sells papers and involves serious allegations. There is a reason the voters of the right distrust the major news organizations to present a balanced view even when it would be profitable.

 

[Cobblestones]

To bring the thread back on its tracks: I read that Obama will attend the climate summit in Copenhagen.

It reminds me of an exchange I had with a Danish border official (all delivered with the unmistakable Danish accent):

Me: (showing passport)
Official: (looks through it) I see you have been to Denmark before.
Me: yes.
Official: So, why are you coming back?

It took me a while to control myself to not LOL.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

First question would then be: Is Mr. Jones indeed part of a public institution in the UK...

The answer was in the link - Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit .. at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England.

It looks like the news sources today in England are at least starting to pay some attention:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea

If you pay attention to the grammar utilized by the author, and note the complete lack of an attempt to print any of the content of the emails in question, you get an idea of the personal bias but at least it acknowledges the hack was not fabricated (just criminal in nature and intended to derail the climate talks - opinion of Phil Jones).

A second English newspaper article did offer up some content from the emails, my favorite being, "More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html

 

[Bala Verde]

It is interesting that what has been mentioned does not concern you at all about the ethics and legitimacy of the scientists favoring global warming - you are not alone as a check of the AP, Reuters, and the UPI did not turn up anything about the hacking or early commentary. While I am sure that could just be a sign of cautious journalism, I would think they should at least mention the basics since it is an issue that sells papers and involves serious allegations. There is a reason the voters of the right distrust the major news organizations to present a balanced view even when it would be profitable.

Excatly! now we are coming to the crux of the matter. If this particular scientist seriously manipulated data, than obviously that is a breach of ethical scientifical conduct. I can fully agree with that. Again, that does not invalidate the large body of research that currently exists.

Secondly, to question a scientists behavior does also not necessarily entail that all his research is/should be invalidated. Stalin could very well be considered a bad person, but when he stated that 1+1=2, was he therefore wrong?

Then you go slightly of on a tangent, because now you almost seem to say that major new organizations are anti-global-warming-deniers, or in other words, biased. To be honest, you do mention a good reason why Reuters etc might not have picked it up yet!

What's up with that allegation. Every time something does not seem to fit an opinion it is disqualified as being biased. 'The liberals; the media; scientists, politicians; the ICJ etc.'

It's the easiest way to avoid discussion IMO.

The answer was in the link - Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit .. at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England.

You cut off the most important part. I knew he was affiliated with UEA in the UK, but my entire sentence was:

Is Mr. Jones indeed part of a public institution in the UK, and (not or) would all the information he keeps be covered under the UK FoI act?

I will read the news outlets later!

 

[Anonymous]

I thought they found something like this...

Electronic Cigarette

Your one of those kiosk guys in the mall selling those stupid electronic cigarettes? Now I know why you have so much time to write such long posts.