"libel" is a standard English language word that can be used as a legal term, I did not use it as such nor made any "threats" in relation to it. You do not get to redefine the words I use. Legal Fail.
In the mean time, please quote or cite evidence to support his libelous claims.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
I understand you do not like debating factual statements, this is not my problem.
There is no infatuation with them, only an infatuation with correcting misinformation I am knowledgeable on.
I am confused, who does not believe in climate change? And for the record I believe a communist (Oswald) shot Kennedy. I have never believed in delusional conspiracy theories about JFK.
The issue you are referring to is about libel in relation to a fake document. Not yours and others misinterpretation of the language the Heartland Institute used in their statement.
I will continue to use the word "libel" in the context I intended which is a dictionary definition. You seem like a smart guy so I am surprised at you lack of objectivity in regards to blatantly factually incorrect statements made by others here that they cannot defend.
You really need to do better research the document was not compiled by Morano (as he stopped working for Sen. Inhofe in 2009) but by minority staff members of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. It is thus a government created document.
The Weekly Standard is a reputable political magazine. I choose those articles as they succinctly summarize the key issues are were written by a reputable author Stephen Hayward.
I can name many papers that use inappropriately conditioned data, such as MBH 98/99, Steig et al. 2009 ect... But in relation to Climategate it was a part of a WMO report written by Phil Jones,
Here you have actually made a "strawman argument" as these claims were not made by me, "You cannot cite a paper that was withdrawn, retracted, or corrected as a result of anything in the CRU e-mails. You cannot cite even one specific instance of a journal rejecting science based on its conclusions.'
Everything I have stated has been cited and fully supported by the evidence I provided. The emails speak for themselves,
"But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [i.e. the Briffa reconstruction] somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly." - Chris Folland, Lead Author, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1996, 2001)
"everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this [the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
"So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. [Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard] Otherwise, the skeptics have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!" - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years." - Mick Kelly, Visiting Fellow, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"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!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. 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." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, ...I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)
"...If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)
I know of no such "anti-science" movement so I cannot answer such silly questions.
Re: Re: Clueless about what a Strawman Argument is
You have yet to make a factual statement about Dr. Singer or the Heartland Institute. There is no such "anti-science" movement let alone one sponsored by the Heartland Institute.
"No one claimed that Heartland tries to disprove anything."
Mike made this argument by making this statement,
"Heartland is well-known in certain circles for its efforts to disprove that smoking causes any harm, as well as its efforts to deny climate change." - Mike Masnick
Are you delusional or in denial of what he stated? Arguing against the factually incorrect statements Mike made is not a strawman argument.
"Everyone knows that Heartland doesn't try to prove or disprove anything, all they do is pay people to introduce doubt into any/every discussion of science that might impact the profit margins of the corporations they represent. [...] They simply pay people to deny climate change for them. "
These are libelous lies.
"I asked you why Singer does not write letters to scientific journals with specific challenges or objections to the papers being published."
All published papers passed peer-review and had any legitimate errors that were brought up during the review corrected before publication. That is how the peer-review process works. Any later published criticisms have been rebutted.
All of the journals I cited are reputable peer-reviewed journals, including Energy and Environment which is cited by the IPCC multiple times,
Your rambling ad hominems against the honorable Dr. Singer are pathetic.
So I'll cite peer-reviewed papers and you will attempt to argue a logical fallacy using ad hominem? Pathetic.
You clearly do not know any of this by heart as it was not Christy and Braswell but Spencer and Braswell.
Lets look at some of the credentials of the reputable scientists you are trying to smear,
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978), M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980), Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982), Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001), MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present), Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present), American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)
If there is no ambiguity as you falsely claim then source and define the theory.
Because I believe the possibility exists for man to have "an" effect on the climate. The question is, how much? Having a 0.01% effect could be considered "AGW theory" just like having a 99.9% effect could be. So you need to define your terms.
1. I support evolution theory.
2. I believe the earth to be an oblate spheroid.
3. I believe "AGW" and it's "implications" to be unsettled science that is grossly exaggerated.
I have not cited a gossip rag or a political blog. The first is used as a source link that reproduces a government document. The other three are from a reputable publication.
Who claimed a paper was retracted or modified due to the CRU emails? Do you even understand what the debate is about?
I have never signed the Cornwall Alliance document. Yes some highly credentialed skeptics happen to be religious, this is hardly surprising news. That is irrelevant to their scientific arguments which do not include religious positions.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Question
2. Please provide the objective criteria for determining what is "controversial" or "inflamatory".
3. Quote where I claimed to be "asking questions".
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Lets learn to use a dictionary
In the mean time, please quote or cite evidence to support his libelous claims.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Question
If anything the debate level here is sub-par and consists of conspiracy theorists and ad hominem logical fallacies. I expected more.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike please get your facts straight about the Heartland's positions
There is no infatuation with them, only an infatuation with correcting misinformation I am knowledgeable on.
I am confused, who does not believe in climate change? And for the record I believe a communist (Oswald) shot Kennedy. I have never believed in delusional conspiracy theories about JFK.
The issue you are referring to is about libel in relation to a fake document. Not yours and others misinterpretation of the language the Heartland Institute used in their statement.
I will continue to use the word "libel" in the context I intended which is a dictionary definition. You seem like a smart guy so I am surprised at you lack of objectivity in regards to blatantly factually incorrect statements made by others here that they cannot defend.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Boxed In Already
Let me know when you can define, "the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)". Your failure to do so is telling.
You have stated your conspiracy theories multiple times already, repeating them does not make them any more true.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Intellectual Honesty?
BTW why has Mike made no corrections to his factually untrue statements that no one has been able to defend?
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Feel Free in the mean time...
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes they did
The Weekly Standard is a reputable political magazine. I choose those articles as they succinctly summarize the key issues are were written by a reputable author Stephen Hayward.
I can name many papers that use inappropriately conditioned data, such as MBH 98/99, Steig et al. 2009 ect... But in relation to Climategate it was a part of a WMO report written by Phil Jones,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Here you have actually made a "strawman argument" as these claims were not made by me, "You cannot cite a paper that was withdrawn, retracted, or corrected as a result of anything in the CRU e-mails. You cannot cite even one specific instance of a journal rejecting science based on its conclusions.'
Everything I have stated has been cited and fully supported by the evidence I provided. The emails speak for themselves,
"But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [i.e. the Briffa reconstruction] somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly." - Chris Folland, Lead Author, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1996, 2001)
"everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this [the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series." - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
"So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. [Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard] Otherwise, the skeptics have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!" - Michael Mann, Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years." - Mick Kelly, Visiting Fellow, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"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!" - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. 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." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process." - Phil Jones, Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
"I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, ...I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)
"...If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author, IPCC (1995)
I know of no such "anti-science" movement so I cannot answer such silly questions.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Incorrect Context
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Please Do Try
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Clueless about what a Strawman Argument is
"No one claimed that Heartland tries to disprove anything."
Mike made this argument by making this statement,
"Heartland is well-known in certain circles for its efforts to disprove that smoking causes any harm, as well as its efforts to deny climate change." - Mike Masnick
Are you delusional or in denial of what he stated? Arguing against the factually incorrect statements Mike made is not a strawman argument.
"Everyone knows that Heartland doesn't try to prove or disprove anything, all they do is pay people to introduce doubt into any/every discussion of science that might impact the profit margins of the corporations they represent. [...] They simply pay people to deny climate change for them. "
These are libelous lies.
"I asked you why Singer does not write letters to scientific journals with specific challenges or objections to the papers being published."
Now you are lying about what you just stated?
"My question is this: why doesn't Fred Singer present his "scientific and statistical evidence" in peer reviewed scientific journals like legitimate scientists do?" - TheOldFart
All published papers passed peer-review and had any legitimate errors that were brought up during the review corrected before publication. That is how the peer-review process works. Any later published criticisms have been rebutted.
All of the journals I cited are reputable peer-reviewed journals, including Energy and Environment which is cited by the IPCC multiple times,
- Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol, Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
The editor has made no such claim of publishing "crap science".
The Revelle opinion paper was not peer-reviewed which is why I did not include it. The truth about the Revelle controversy can be read about here,
http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
Why would I leave a paper [Douglas et al. 2007] out where the criticisms against it have been refuted?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0445.pdf
Your rambling ad hominems against the honorable Dr. Singer are pathetic.
So I'll cite peer-reviewed papers and you will attempt to argue a logical fallacy using ad hominem? Pathetic.
You clearly do not know any of this by heart as it was not Christy and Braswell but Spencer and Braswell.
Lets look at some of the credentials of the reputable scientists you are trying to smear,
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978), M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980), Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982), Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001), MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present), Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present), American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)
People can certainly make up their own minds.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
CO2 is not pollution
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html
2. You are the only one who has to worry about your decision to smoke.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Define the theory
Because I believe the possibility exists for man to have "an" effect on the climate. The question is, how much? Having a 0.01% effect could be considered "AGW theory" just like having a 99.9% effect could be. So you need to define your terms.
You are the one speaking in absolutes.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Grasping Science
2. I believe the earth to be an oblate spheroid.
3. I believe "AGW" and it's "implications" to be unsettled science that is grossly exaggerated.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Evidence of Altered Data
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
I have yet to scatter as you lack on knowledge on this subject is embarrassing.
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Stating facts relating to the topic is not trolling
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
More Lies
On the post: Pro Tip: Even If Someone Has Faked A Damaging Memo About Your Organization, Don't Threaten To Sue Anyone Who 'Comments' On It
Re: Re: Yes they did
Who claimed a paper was retracted or modified due to the CRU emails? Do you even understand what the debate is about?
I have never signed the Cornwall Alliance document. Yes some highly credentialed skeptics happen to be religious, this is hardly surprising news. That is irrelevant to their scientific arguments which do not include religious positions.
Next >>