Hands in the cookie jar about to get slapped

[Seth]

All I indicated is that none these scientists were scientists are actually neutral in regard to global warming and that they have been selected to constitute a panel that is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group. The pretence that the outcome might not be totally predictable is worthy of every bit of sarcasm, and in this case there is no hint of an ad hominem. You are reading stuff into what I wrote that is not there.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim...]QED

I made no assertion regarding their claim one way or another. All I said is that the tenor of the panel's report is entirely predictable. So, no circumstantial ad hominem and no QED.

That IS a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy! You are stating the "tenor" of a report not yet written or published based solely on your perception of the character of the panel, not on the content of the report. It doesn't get any more circumstantially ad hominem than that.

[Seth]

Ah. So no evidence. Gotcha.

The evidence that I mentioned is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Maybe you need a bit of help with it.

You didn't provide evidence. You provided a conspiracy theory scenario. A scenario which has another explanation anyway. That climate scientists get justifiably angry with denialist nit-wits poisoning the well with a campaign of lies and misinformation, one which looks remarkably similar to the ones exercised by the intelligent designa dn creationist crowd.

I'm not saying that is what's happening, I'm saying that fits your scenario just as much as the reason "skeptics" are shot down is because they don't tow the line, which is why you need to provide evidence to support your scenario. Otherwise it just sounds like butt-hurt that the evidence isn't going the denialist's way.

Surely this thread is about the very fact that the ''evidence'' is collected by the faithful, charted by the faithful and interpreted by the faithful.

Actually, it's collected by scientists, charted by scientists, and interpreted by scientists.

Exactly, the faithful, just as he said.

Just as evidence for the principle of flight and electricity and medicine and industrial chemistry and genetics and geology etc etc etc was collected+ by scientists. If you think science is a big conspiracy then what are you doing on the internet, flying places, driving your car, going to the doctor, microwaving your food, drinking the tap water, turning on your lights etc etc etc??

You're trying to maintain that there is no such thing as scientific or academic fraud? Follow the money.

Notwithstanding all that, the evidence still says that the warming stopped, nearly twenty years ago.

The warming didn't stop. Certain specific measures stopped, but the overall system never stopped warming.

Well, that's kinda, sorta the whole question, isn't it?

[Animavore]

Exactly, the faithful, just as he said.

Are you really claiming that the team led by Richard Muller et al were "the faithful"?

You're trying to maintain that there is no such thing as scientific or academic fraud? Follow the money.

I'm sure you have loads of evidence to back this up.

[pErvinalia]

I'm sure he doesn't.

As you pointed out, lots of science is funded by research grants. The denialist clowns only focus on climate change because it goes against their love of fossil fuels and the huge sums of money involved in the industry.

[Seth]

Exactly, the faithful, just as he said.

Are you really claiming that the team led by Richard Muller et al were "the faithful"?

Of course. They have faith in science. Ask them.

[Animavore]

Exactly, the faithful, just as he said.

Are you really claiming that the team led by Richard Muller et al were "the faithful"?

Of course. They have faith in science. Ask them.

Cop out.

[Hermit]

All I indicated is that none these scientists were scientists are actually neutral in regard to global warming and that they have been selected to constitute a panel that is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group. The pretence that the outcome might not be totally predictable is worthy of every bit of sarcasm, and in this case there is no hint of an ad hominem. You are reading stuff into what I wrote that is not there.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim...]QED

I made no assertion regarding their claim one way or another. All I said is that the tenor of the panel's report is entirely predictable. So, no circumstantial ad hominem and no QED.

That IS a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy! You are stating the "tenor" of a report not yet written or published based solely on your perception of the character of the panel, not on the content of the report. It doesn't get any more circumstantially ad hominem than that.

No at all. You are conflating "tenor" with "value judgement". "Tenor" just means "The general course or character of something." It could be positive, neutral or negative. I made no judgement whatsoever about the tenor's quality. All I said that the general course or character (tenor, in short) of the outcome is totally predictable.

[Seth]

All I indicated is that none these scientists were scientists are actually neutral in regard to global warming and that they have been selected to constitute a panel that is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group. The pretence that the outcome might not be totally predictable is worthy of every bit of sarcasm, and in this case there is no hint of an ad hominem. You are reading stuff into what I wrote that is not there.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim...]QED

I made no assertion regarding their claim one way or another. All I said is that the tenor of the panel's report is entirely predictable. So, no circumstantial ad hominem and no QED.

That IS a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy! You are stating the "tenor" of a report not yet written or published based solely on your perception of the character of the panel, not on the content of the report. It doesn't get any more circumstantially ad hominem than that.

No at all. You are conflating "tenor" with "value judgement". "Tenor" just means "The general course or character of something." It could be positive, neutral or negative. I made no judgement whatsoever about the tenor's quality. All I said that the general course or character (tenor, in short) of the outcome is totally predictable.

Except it's not. You are assuming a "tenor" that you think is "predictable" based only on the character and prior actions of the individuals involved. That's circumstantial ad hominem.

Moreover, you're being mendacious in now claiming that you didn't mean a "negative" tenor towards the proposition that AGW is occurring. You know perfectly well that's what you meant and the content of the post in which you outline the CV of the members makes that perfectly obvious and clear by listing all of their anti-AGW credentials in a negative manner.

You're just backpedaling now because I caught you in a cleft stick of your own making, and its pretty obvious and quite amusing to watch you squirm.

[mistermack]

In your opinion.

Basically, your thesis is that money is distorting climate science. Then why isn't it distorting all science?!?

If there is no global warming problem, there is no need for all the climate scientists.
Just a tiny percentage would be needed, for academic research on a subject that was not really important to anyone.

The whole climate industry, which is absolutely huge, NEEDS global warming to be a problem.

[Hermit]

Sheesh, Seth, "tenor" has nothing to do with a condemnatory or even mildly disapproving tone. Read the dictionary definition. As to anti-AGW credentials being used "in a negative manner", are being cited as the reason why the report's tenor is absolutely predictable. Now please stop reading stuff into my words that simply is not there. What I do disapprove of is the idea that the outcome might not be a foregone conclusion. It is settled before a word of it has been written, and the certainty of that is guaranteed 100% by the background of the commissioning organisation, the chairman of the investigative panel and the panel's ordinary members. Or do you think, that given the background of everybody involved there is even a miniscule possibility that the report will agree with people who regard anthropocentric global warming as a real and major danger to our future after all? Seriously?

[mistermack]

Sheesh, Seth, "tenor" has nothing to do with a condemnatory or even mildly disapproving tone. Read the dictionary definition. As to anti-AGW credentials being used "in a negative manner", are being cited as the reason why the report's tenor is absolutely predictable. Now please stop reading stuff into my words that simply is not there. What I do disapprove of is the idea that the outcome might not be a foregone conclusion. It is settled before a word of it has been written, and the certainty of that is guaranteed 100% by the background of the commissioning organisation, the chairman of the investigative panel and the panel's ordinary members. Or do you think, that given the background of everybody involved there is even a miniscule possibility that the report will agree with people who regard anthropocentric global warming as a real and major danger to our future after all? Seriously?

Probably true, but the same thing works in the opposite direction too.
What people seem to be arguing is that bias is only operating in one direction. Yeh, right.

[Seth]

Sheesh, Seth, "tenor" has nothing to do with a condemnatory or even mildly disapproving tone. Read the dictionary definition. As to anti-AGW credentials being used "in a negative manner", are being cited as the reason why the report's tenor is absolutely predictable. Now please stop reading stuff into my words that simply is not there. What I do disapprove of is the idea that the outcome might not be a foregone conclusion. It is settled before a word of it has been written, and the certainty of that is guaranteed 100% by the background of the commissioning organisation, the chairman of the investigative panel and the panel's ordinary members. Or do you think, that given the background of everybody involved there is even a miniscule possibility that the report will agree with people who regard anthropocentric global warming as a real and major danger to our future after all? Seriously?

As I said, you have just clearly and completely demonstrated exactly how your comment is an ad hominem fallacy. A fallacy does not have to be positive or negative. If you had said the same thing with the "tenor" being that these guys are sent from God with infallible knowledge that is pre-ordained by God himself, it would still be an ad hominem fallacy.

I posted the definition and description, go read it carefully.

An ad hominem fallacy is an informal logical fallacy in which the author (you) states that a claim made by someone else is either true or false based not on the argument itself, but on the character or circumstances of the claimant. It's a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim (in this case the credibility of a forthcoming report) has nothing whatever to do, logically, with the circumstances of the claimant.

Yes, it's certainly possible, even likely that this report will conclude that the temperature records have been improperly tampered with, but it is also logically and factually possible that it will confirm NOAA's adjustments to past data. You are assuming that it will come out against NOAA and AGW because, and only because of the circumstances or character of the panel. Therefore, since your statement is not based in any objective fact with respect to the actual report itself it is purely based in your opinion of the character of the panel, and that, my friend, is absolutely classic, perfect form definitional circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

[Seth]

Sheesh, Seth, "tenor" has nothing to do with a condemnatory or even mildly disapproving tone. Read the dictionary definition. As to anti-AGW credentials being used "in a negative manner", are being cited as the reason why the report's tenor is absolutely predictable. Now please stop reading stuff into my words that simply is not there. What I do disapprove of is the idea that the outcome might not be a foregone conclusion. It is settled before a word of it has been written, and the certainty of that is guaranteed 100% by the background of the commissioning organisation, the chairman of the investigative panel and the panel's ordinary members. Or do you think, that given the background of everybody involved there is even a miniscule possibility that the report will agree with people who regard anthropocentric global warming as a real and major danger to our future after all? Seriously?

Probably true, but the same thing works in the opposite direction too.
What people seem to be arguing is that bias is only operating in one direction. Yeh, right.

That's not what I said. Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy cuts both ways. See above.

[Hermit]

In my opinion Phil Jones is no scientist. He is a global warming crusader. No trick is dirty enough for him. Denying data to people on the grounds that they'll just abuse them. Wow. Telling a colleague that he'll stack a journal with suitable editors so that undesirable scientists won't get articles past peer reviews. Wow again. And he is by no means the only crook. The CRU at the University of East Anglia deleted raw data and kept the interpretations of them because they said they ran out of storage. Faaaaarking hell!

Yes, a parliamentary inquiry cleared Jones of any wrong doing. Talk about friends in high places. Jones has done more damage to his cause than Plimer could ever hope to inflict.

Frankly, I don't know who is worse between the two. Plimer has massive conflicts of interests, being on the board of directors of several mining companies and owning sizeable parcels of shares in some of them, and Jones seems to think he lives in the wild west where anything is allowed.

[Hermit]

Time to put you back on ignore, Seth. Even Mayhem is yawning at your nonsense and stubborn persistence in misreading me.