On 5 March 2010 13:55, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David Connors > > *Sent:* Friday, 5 March 2010 11:05 AM > *To:* ozDotNet > > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles > needed > > 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. > > No – it doesn’t actually address any of the scientific papers or evidence > that are cited in IPCC AR4. > I did not say that it did. I said that the stuff in the CRU leaks and a lot of the dissenting "voodoo" material on the web showed that the IPCC guys and CRU are far from scientific and I'd extend that as saying that they show significant political motivation.
Again, you seem to be on some bent that I'm out to discredit AR4 in its entirety. Again, one more time with feeling: I am merely suggesting you look at both sides of the argument to form a balanced opinion. > And this is the problem I am having with all the posting you are doing. > There is **nothing* *you have cited anywhere that says “here is a study > which shows systemic problems in upper tropospheric satellite recordings”, > “here is a study which shows problems in these cited bird migration studies” > etc. > Quite correct. I have only posted stuff that said: here is a place where you can find e-mails from people who are leaders in the AGW field conspiring to delete e-mails, delete data rather than provide it, conspire to corrupt the peer review process, and write some pretty awful code and that people should have a read before you consider AGW a forgone conclusion. I have also been at pains to say that I don't think that this necessarily disproves AGW - only that it should give people pause for thought and that people should look at both sides of the argument. I have, you don't want to as you think it is just for sociologists. That's fine and I guess that is where we shall never agree. > The IPCC doesn’t do any scientific research – they cite papers that others > have written, and you have nothing to refute any of that. > They also cite New Scientist, WWF, tourist guides, mountain climbing mags. No one said anything about that until the blogosphere pointed it out. That gave me pause for thought. > There aren’t two sides of an argument here. You have presented no > alternative. Reading emails **is not science** and pretending that it is, > is simply disingenuous. > I have never presented reading e-mails as science. > Please provide some scientific alternative. > All I am saying is that you need to look at the argument from both sides to form a balanced opinion. It is not possible to divorce a scientific paper from conclusions and political agenda when people are on the record as proposing to delete data or get rid of journal editors who disagree with their point of view. No, I don't have a scientific paper to say that, but the people who write the papers wrote statements like that. Can I ignore that as a reasonable person? Not really. > Some of the stuff out of AR4 WG2 has been shown by mere bloggers to be > manifestly wrong > > Actually, the it was pointed out by a scientist who went on to point out > that it by no means detracts from the overall conclusions of the AR4. > Which part? The fact they cited a guide on cleaning shoes, WWF pamphlets, The New York Times, New Scientist or a mountain climbing magazine? Which one of those was pointed out by a scientist? And why did they make it to publication before he did if there were 2000 scientists on the job? They seem quite negligent given the money and time spent and the considerables issues at stake. Citing those sources in an international report in the specific call to action for global governments is not science. It also does not say that IPCC AR4 is wrong - but it should at least make a reasonable enquiring mind interested in seeing what the CRU guys et al say when there are no 'denialists' in the room. *shrugs* It will be interesting to see what AR5 shapes up like and whether Puchauri's position is even tenable after the recent UNEP meeting in Bali. -- 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
