On 1 March 2010 22:48, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > What I DID say is that people who are dismissing the climategate stuff and > AR4 nonesense out of hand should stop - breathe - and read the material. > Draw your own conclusions on the basis of having read it. > > … > > Again, I'm merely suggesting you look at the material. > > For what purpose? Does any of this provide any scientific evidence to > suggest that what we are being told is incorrect? > It provides plenty of evidence that both the IPCC and the EUA guys are far from scientific.
> Instead if people are going to spend hours looking at things, why not go > look at some actual scientific papers? > Why not look at a multitude of sources? > It is clear from the angry e-mails I'm getting on this thread is that my > merely questioning the content of AR4 (esp WG2) as well as the motivations > of the people outed in the CRU e-mail leaks/hacks is enough to tick people > off in a major way. > > Not at all – there are no angry emails here that I can see. We don’t need > to tar the other side of the discussion with these emotive terms. > I must have missed the smiley when it was inferred that I'm only going to agree with anything with a neo-conservative agenda. > What upsets me is your complete inability to provide any alternative > science. > Why be upset? I'm just suggesting you go read the material. I've merely stated my opinion that one should give pause for thought when some of the global players in AGW are on the record for deleting data, subverting the peer-review process, and so on and the IPCC has been caught with its daks around its ankles by quoting stuff like a tourist operator's pamphlet on how to clean your shoes as evidence of AGW impact on Antarctica. I don't think we need to have a peer reviewed assessment of the material to draw a preliminary conclusion. > Tens of thousands of scientific papers say that ‘x’ is happening (CO2 is > increasing, and that it’s caused by mankind, and that we can expect various > things to happen, depending on how quickly the change happens). On the other > hand you are saying “go read a bunch of emails written fallible humans in > the course of years of everyday interaction”. Frankly, the former has > scientific value, and the latter has value to sociologists only. > *shrugs* If you don't want to read both sides of the argument then there isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise. Some of the stuff out of AR4 WG2 has been shown by mere bloggers to be manifestly wrong. The same logic you're using for ignoring any of the material from the other side of the argument is exactly the same logic as Puchauri and co use when referring to people as believing in "voodoo science" and yet - the bloggers were right. If it wasn't for those "voodoo scientists" the patently incorrect stuff in AR4 would still be standing as irrefutable scientific conclusion, and it would still be riddled with citations from the World Wildlife Fund, New Scientist, a guide on cleaning your shoes and so on. > Unfortunately I lost a few days’ worth of mail, > So did CRU, apparently. > so if you could kindly link to the actual science theories and papers you > are relying on, that would be muchly appreciated. > Relying on for what? I am just suggesting you keep a balanced view and especially clap your peepers on some of the CRU source code. I haven't drawn any conclusions on AGW other than the fact that some of the key players display terrible behaviour when there are no adults in the room and that should give you pause for thought. IPCC AR4 contains a number of dead set clangers - and if there are 2000 scientists working on it and yet citations for WWF and New Scientist make it into the key part that calls government to action - then we have a problem. -- David Connors ([email protected]) Software Engineer Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 417 189 363 V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
