Hands in the cookie jar about to get slapped

[Seth]

In my opinion Phil Jones is no scientist. He is a global warming crusader.

And you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't make your opinion any less of a fallacy however.

No trick is dirty enough for him.

Sounds like hyperbole to me...or actually it sounds more like Warmist tactics.

Denying data to people on the grounds that they'll just abuse them. Wow.

I'm sure he's correct in this assessment. After all, those fuckers have been abusing all the other data, and therein lies the reason the review is taking place.

Telling a colleague that he'll stack a journal with suitable editors so that undesirable scientists won't get articles past peer reviews

.

You mean do exactly what the Warmist priesthood has been doing for decades now? Sauce, goose, gander.

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!

Sounds like what Warmists do when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Yes, a parliamentary inquiry cleared Jones of any wrong doing. Talk about friends in high places.

So if a parliamentary inquiry clears Jones it's corruption, but if it clears Warmists it's not? Yeah, right.

Jones has done more damage to his cause than Plimer could ever hope to inflict.

Depends on who you talk to I guess.

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.

Everybody hated Martin Luther at first too.

[Seth]

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

I'm not misreading you, you're refusing to see the obvious truth. I've given you the references and the logic but you're too scardy-pants to give it an objective look and admit that you posted an ad hominem fallacy. That speaks to the microscopic width of that crack you call a mind, so ignore away, you won't be missed.

[klr]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group.

Terence Kealey lectured in clinical biochemistry at the University of Cambridge. He is well known for his outspoken opposition to public funding of science.

Petr Chylek is a researcher for Space and Remote Sensing Sciences at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a bona fide climatologist. In 2009 he also wrote an open letter in which he calls for an end to making "unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them."

Richard McNider has dismissed the scientific consensus on global warming on the grounds that there has been a scientific consensus concerning scurvy that turned out to be wrong.

Roger Pielke, a noted climatologist, said: "The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be", but "there are other equally or even more important significant human climate forcings" and furthermore "We now know, however, that the natural variations of atmospheric and ocean circulation features within the climate system produces global average heat changes that are substantially larger than what was known in 2005."

William van Wijngaarden is on record for disputing the effect of contrails.


So, altogether we can be confident that this high powered panel of perfectly neutral and objective men in regard to anthropomorphic global climate change, convened by an institution that has nothing but finding the truth in mind will come up with the right result.

I think this meets the dictionary definition of a "motley crew".

[Hermit]

In my opinion Phil Jones is no scientist. He is a global warming crusader.

And you're entitled to your opinion. That doesn't make your opinion any less of a fallacy however.

No trick is dirty enough for him.

Sounds like hyperbole to me...or actually it sounds more like Warmist tactics.

Denying data to people on the grounds that they'll just abuse them. Wow.

I'm sure he's correct in this assessment. After all, those fuckers have been abusing all the other data, and therein lies the reason the review is taking place.

Telling a colleague that he'll stack a journal with suitable editors so that undesirable scientists won't get articles past peer reviews.

You mean do exactly what the Warmist priesthood has been doing for decades now? Sauce, goose, gander.

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!

Sounds like what Warmists do when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Yes, a parliamentary inquiry cleared Jones of any wrong doing. Talk about friends in high places.

So if a parliamentary inquiry clears Jones it's corruption, but if it clears Warmists it's not? Yeah, right.

Jones has done more damage to his cause than Plimer could ever hope to inflict.

Depends on who you talk to I guess.

May I suggest you check out who Phil Jones is and what the CRU does?

[Seth]

May I suggest you check out who Phil Jones is and what the CRU does?

Doesn't matter who he is or what he does, the fallacy remains the same. Just replace Jones with someone else and the result is the same. A person's character has no logical connection to the truth or falsity of that person's claim, particularly when no claim has yet been made.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and again.

[Hermit]

May I suggest you check out who Phil Jones is and what the CRU does?

Doesn't matter who he is or what he does, the fallacy remains the same. Just replace Jones with someone else and the result is the same. A person's character has no logical connection to the truth or falsity of that person's claim, particularly when no claim has yet been made.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and again.

What amused me about your misapprehension that Jones and the CRU are anthropic climate change sceptics is the way it caused you to condemn climate anthropic climate change sceptics of doing exactly what I just accused a person and an institution you call "warmist" of doing.

[mistermack]

In any case, it's a completely false argument.
If you needed an operation, you wouldn't choose a surgeon who killed his last ten patients.
Someone's record does mean something.

But that also means that any claim by the IPCC should be take with a huge pinch of salt.
You only have to look at what they have claimed in the past to see that the next statement is going to be of the same ilk.

They make completely unfounded claims about their ''confidence levels''. Global warming stops for twenty years? Their ''confidence levels'' go up and up.
They've been full of shit in the past. I know what to expect in the future. I want to see hard indisputable facts behind every claim, because they just can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I take everything in climate science with a pinch of salt. Because the ''facts'' can't be trusted, and the people can't be trusted, to be objective. On both sides.

That's why it's not a science. There's no objectivity.

[Seth]

May I suggest you check out who Phil Jones is and what the CRU does?

Doesn't matter who he is or what he does, the fallacy remains the same. Just replace Jones with someone else and the result is the same. A person's character has no logical connection to the truth or falsity of that person's claim, particularly when no claim has yet been made.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and again.

What amused me about your misapprehension that Jones and the CRU are anthropic climate change sceptics is the way it caused you to condemn climate anthropic climate change sceptics of doing exactly what I just accused a person and an institution you call "warmist" of doing.

Yes, I was wrong about that, but the point remains.

[Seth]

In any case, it's a completely false argument.
If you needed an operation, you wouldn't choose a surgeon who killed his last ten patients.

But you wouldn't assume that a surgeon was going to kill ten patients before he does so. You might also look into why his last ten patients died. Perhaps he's a trauma surgeon working in a war zone and his luck in getting saveable patients was bad.

Someone's record does mean something.

Of course it does, it just doesn't mean that a report not yet written is a "foregone conclusion."

But that also means that any claim by the IPCC should be take with a huge pinch of salt.
You only have to look at what they have claimed in the past to see that the next statement is going to be of the same ilk.

Yup. Sauce, goose, gander. I'm in no way claiming that this study will be accurate or usable, but I'm willing to wait for the report before calling it a fraud.

They make completely unfounded claims about their ''confidence levels''. Global warming stops for twenty years? Their ''confidence levels'' go up and up.
They've been full of shit in the past. I know what to expect in the future. I want to see hard indisputable facts behind every claim, because they just can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I take everything in climate science with a pinch of salt. Because the ''facts'' can't be trusted, and the people can't be trusted, to be objective. On both sides.

That's why it's not a science. There's no objectivity.

Yup. Which is why I welcome skeptical investigation and opinion from the "other side." Without such skeptical inquiry we'd never have found out about much of the bullshit the IPCC has been pandering. Skeptical analysis of the IPCC claims isn't fraud, it's good science. If the IPCC's claims can't withstand such critical scrutiny, how reliable are they to begin with?

[piscator]

There's no objectivity.

That's the same thing homeopaths say.

[mistermack]

There's no objectivity.

That's the same thing homeopaths say.

Nope. They say . . .

[Tero]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate change denier group.

Terence Kealey lectured in clinical biochemistry at the University of Cambridge. He is well known for his outspoken opposition to public funding of science.

Petr Chylek is a researcher for Space and Remote Sensing Sciences at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a bona fide climatologist. In 2009 he also wrote an open letter in which he calls for an end to making "unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them."

Richard McNider has dismissed the scientific consensus on global warming on the grounds that there has been a scientific consensus concerning scurvy that turned out to be wrong.

Roger Pielke, a noted climatologist, said: "The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be", but "there are other equally or even more important significant human climate forcings" and furthermore "We now know, however, that the natural variations of atmospheric and ocean circulation features within the climate system produces global average heat changes that are substantially larger than what was known in 2005."

William van Wijngaarden is on record for disputing the effect of contrails.


So, altogether we can be confident that this high powered panel of perfectly neutral and objective men in regard to anthropomorphic global climate change, convened by an institution that has nothing but finding the truth in mind will come up with the right result.

I think this meets the dictionary definition of a "motley crew".

The funding is such that they are only paid to produce denialist reports. No denialism, no salary.