Well, Dr Lewis will certainly have is day in the sun. See how this plays out. btw, it is possible to actually examine his claims and dig beneath the surface for yourself.
I employed a tacit rarely used by deniers, and actually read the climategate emails, and found the analysis laughable myself.
Making threats in private emails that were not supposed to be read by anybody else? Right, I'd be quaking in my boots if somebody said told one of their friends that they were going to punch me in the face at some unspecified time and place in the future. Real scary, considering the threat was never actually delivered. On the other hand, you do realise that Mann receives actual real death threats all the time.
Wanting to suppress papers from the IPCC? Understandable given the insane and dishonest nature of the debate. However, the IPCC did not suppress the papers and they were published.
"Hiding the decline" with a "trick"? The Oxford dictionary lists trick as a mathematical technique. The decline being hidden is not a decline in global temperature, but the decline in tree-ring data after about 1980. We have thermometer records which are much more accurate anyway. And furthermore, you don't need tree-ring data to reconstruct the hockey-stick. Tree-rings are just one of many different techniques which produce the same result.
I have no doubt that you want to believe that climategate is some sort of smoking gun and indictment on Mann's character. But where is the evidence? It is a storm in a teacup.
Right, I'm accusing you of fraud. Now hand over _all_ your correspondence, because I want to find some evidence of your wrong-doing (I have none right now). You must comply, because in the public eye there is no smoke without fire.
You see? What the AG finds evidence that Mann had bought some pot at some stage in the last 10 years. Without due cause and limitations, the AG would be able to engage in witch hunts.
That has not been demonstrated, but I trust that you sincerely believe so. Go back to your sources and look again. See if you can find counter arguments. The climategate fiasco (and similar) really is paper thin. Nature magazine called it laughably paranoid. The guys who were smart enough to come up with the physics that is required to design the computer you are currently using - they think climategate is laughably paranoid.
Where did I say he wasn't allowed to defend himself?
By stating that anything he says can be discounted on an Ad Hominem basis, because it is about him personally.
Mann was targeted by a sustained smear campaign, and the result is that anything he says cannot be trusted because he has dubious character. In effect, that is preventing someone from defending themselves from character assassination.
The marginal cost of accommodating some information is too great, because it challenges deep structures in cognitive models, or schemata. This is the same for every human being, and is the reason why we can become psychotic. We all experience this to a certain degree, which Eysenck made a big deal about in his personality models.
It is the human condition it believe that we are searching for truth - but we will always have an agenda in creatively processing certain types of information, no matter who we are.
Everybody has an agenda. For example, are you not invested in your beliefs yourself? That is your agenda. There is no such thing as trying to find someone without an agenda, unless you are talking about someone who knows nothing and doesn't care to.
Be honest with yourself - how much of the data have you really looked at? Do you actually/understand/ the arguments that scientists are making, or are you just going with impugning them on their motives.
He is guilty without looking at all the evidence. See here.
How can it be possible to start assassinating someone's character to the point that they are not allowed to defend themselves - because in your words - they have proven morally dubious character?
If you case rests on climategate, then look again very carefully, and if you miss the obvious, then think back to this moment in 10 years time.
Attorney General: He's just saying that because he stands accused.
You see... it is a logical fallacy. Just because Mann stands accused of a crime does not make his arguments void just because he is motivated to defend himself.
So if I accuse you of fraud, then others can discount your rebuttal using Ad Hominems, according to the//BRILLIANT// logic that fraud concerns you personally, and therefore Ad Hominems are relevant.
Well... you have to read and understand for yourself. There is no way around it. I encourage you to actually *look* at the arguments and the rebuttal. After a while you will notice a predictable pattern -- where one side actually responds to criticisms, and the other side clutches at straws, and brings up the same tired arguments over and over again, all the while never responding to criticism.
Unfortunately it takes time and patient, but if you have both, you can easily get to the bottom of this nonsense. Assertions based solely on motivations are too vapid to make a discourse. You must to the work yourself.
btw, you should know that in tearing down science, market researchers discovered (using science) that people are much more comfortable impugning motives then talking about the actual issues. The effects of marketing are pernicious. So if you find yourself solely basing your opinions on the motivations of others (and not the content or their arguments, or the content of their actions), then you may well have fallen prey to a well orchestrated misinformation campaign.
McIntyre & McIntrick objections to Mann have been fully documented and responded to in the academic discourse. However, McIntyre & McIntrick have been unable to respond to the objections. Their argument as been reduced to vapor.
There is not a chance in hell that I'd buy a blu-ray unless I could store and back-up the contents on a regular media server. I hate all those little plastic boxes, and I also hate the anti-piracy messages and studio branding.
Net result: I've found better things to do with my time.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's the only right you have.
Oh god, have you never heard of a captive market? Sometimes I think libertarians live in a bizzaro world where captive markets don't exist. Granted, blu-ray isn't really a captive market, but the media companies will sure try their best to make it so. Doesn't matter to me, I read books.
We're not just dealing with peak oil, we're dealing with peak-every-natural-resource-including-minerals.
The importance of oil is energy. The price of the long-term alternatives will be set by an energy-in-energy-out equation. So far, nothing comes even remotely close to oil. So all those alternatives you read about, are subsidized by cheap oil.
A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.
You, my friend, have committed the egregious fallacy of equivocation. You see - Germany is a sovereign nation *and* a race, but eskimo is just a race.
Then again, you could have merely been engaging in boring back-handed racists hatred. Germany doesn't have the patent on burning jews, but it is relevant because history has shown what untrammelled nationalism and racism begets.
A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.
You, my friend, have committed the egregious fallacy of equivocation. You see - Germany is a sovereign nation *and* a race, but eskimo is just a race.
Then again, you could have merely been engaging in boring back-handed racist hatred. Germany doesn't have the patent on burning jews, but it is relevant because history has shown what untrammelled nationalism and racism begets.
The world is a different question and one that many 'experts' have been very, very wrong about many, many times.
There have been malthusian predictions by many experts, however, some long-running time-tested predictions have been panning out pretty closely to what's been actually happening. (Think Hubert and peak oil - he was out by 10 years but failed to account for the oil crisis of the 70s.)
The population will likely peak at about 9 billion, and then start to decrease. That may cause people to do bad things - or maybe the staving and thirsty will go peacefully.
Slashdot Mirror
I employed a tacit rarely used by deniers, and actually read the climategate emails, and found the analysis laughable myself.
I have no doubt that you want to believe that climategate is some sort of smoking gun and indictment on Mann's character. But where is the evidence? It is a storm in a teacup.
Right, I'm accusing you of fraud. Now hand over _all_ your correspondence, because I want to find some evidence of your wrong-doing (I have none right now). You must comply, because in the public eye there is no smoke without fire.
You see? What the AG finds evidence that Mann had bought some pot at some stage in the last 10 years. Without due cause and limitations, the AG would be able to engage in witch hunts.
And that is exactly what the judge found
demonstrably of poor character
That has not been demonstrated, but I trust that you sincerely believe so. Go back to your sources and look again. See if you can find counter arguments. The climategate fiasco (and similar) really is paper thin. Nature magazine called it laughably paranoid. The guys who were smart enough to come up with the physics that is required to design the computer you are currently using - they think climategate is laughably paranoid.
Where did I say he wasn't allowed to defend himself?
By stating that anything he says can be discounted on an Ad Hominem basis, because it is about him personally.
Mann was targeted by a sustained smear campaign, and the result is that anything he says cannot be trusted because he has dubious character. In effect, that is preventing someone from defending themselves from character assassination.
My agenda is to find the truth.
The marginal cost of accommodating some information is too great, because it challenges deep structures in cognitive models, or schemata. This is the same for every human being, and is the reason why we can become psychotic. We all experience this to a certain degree, which Eysenck made a big deal about in his personality models.
It is the human condition it believe that we are searching for truth - but we will always have an agenda in creatively processing certain types of information, no matter who we are.
Only a buddha has no agenda.
Everybody has an agenda. For example, are you not invested in your beliefs yourself? That is your agenda. There is no such thing as trying to find someone without an agenda, unless you are talking about someone who knows nothing and doesn't care to.
/understand/ the arguments that scientists are making, or are you just going with impugning them on their motives.
Be honest with yourself - how much of the data have you really looked at? Do you actually
climategate emails
He is guilty without looking at all the evidence. See here.
How can it be possible to start assassinating someone's character to the point that they are not allowed to defend themselves - because in your words - they have proven morally dubious character?
If you case rests on climategate, then look again very carefully, and if you miss the obvious, then think back to this moment in 10 years time.
You see... it is a logical fallacy. Just because Mann stands accused of a crime does not make his arguments void just because he is motivated to defend himself.
apparently you didn't learn anything about climate, or using good sources
How do you discriminate a good source?
I learnt something in my psychology degree...
Well said. I wouldn't want anything to distract you from your favorite source. You might actually learn something.
Freud calls that projection. Alas for the bloom.
You mean that "hide decline", lol! Check out this wrap-up. Of course, there is no way for you to process this information, but do us a favour and try.
Wait a day, and re-read the conversation.
I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone.
-- Oscar Wilde
So if I accuse you of fraud, then others can discount your rebuttal using Ad Hominems, according to the //BRILLIANT// logic that fraud concerns you personally, and therefore Ad Hominems are relevant.
Is that what you are saying?
Well... you have to read and understand for yourself. There is no way around it. I encourage you to actually *look* at the arguments and the rebuttal. After a while you will notice a predictable pattern -- where one side actually responds to criticisms, and the other side clutches at straws, and brings up the same tired arguments over and over again, all the while never responding to criticism.
Unfortunately it takes time and patient, but if you have both, you can easily get to the bottom of this nonsense. Assertions based solely on motivations are too vapid to make a discourse. You must to the work yourself.
btw, you should know that in tearing down science, market researchers discovered (using science) that people are much more comfortable impugning motives then talking about the actual issues. The effects of marketing are pernicious. So if you find yourself solely basing your opinions on the motivations of others (and not the content or their arguments, or the content of their actions), then you may well have fallen prey to a well orchestrated misinformation campaign.
So...
I call you a fraud, and if you defend yourself, others can claim Ad Hominem.
Good going Einstein.
McIntyre & McIntrick objections to Mann have been fully documented and responded to in the academic discourse. However, McIntyre & McIntrick have been unable to respond to the objections. Their argument as been reduced to vapor.
So... how do you know what is real?
There is not a chance in hell that I'd buy a blu-ray unless I could store and back-up the contents on a regular media server. I hate all those little plastic boxes, and I also hate the anti-piracy messages and studio branding.
Net result: I've found better things to do with my time.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's the only right you have.
Oh god, have you never heard of a captive market? Sometimes I think libertarians live in a bizzaro world where captive markets don't exist. Granted, blu-ray isn't really a captive market, but the media companies will sure try their best to make it so. Doesn't matter to me, I read books.
It's called competition, and it's what we really, really need in the software industry.
A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.
You, my friend, have committed the egregious fallacy of equivocation. You see - Germany is a sovereign nation *and* a race, but eskimo is just a race.
Then again, you could have merely been engaging in boring back-handed racists hatred. Germany doesn't have the patent on burning jews, but it is relevant because history has shown what untrammelled nationalism and racism begets.
A Turk living in Germany is a German in the same way that a Dane living in Greenland is an Eskimo.
You, my friend, have committed the egregious fallacy of equivocation. You see - Germany is a sovereign nation *and* a race, but eskimo is just a race.
Then again, you could have merely been engaging in boring back-handed racist hatred. Germany doesn't have the patent on burning jews, but it is relevant because history has shown what untrammelled nationalism and racism begets.
The world is a different question and one that many 'experts' have been very, very wrong about many, many times.
There have been malthusian predictions by many experts, however, some long-running time-tested predictions have been panning out pretty closely to what's been actually happening. (Think Hubert and peak oil - he was out by 10 years but failed to account for the oil crisis of the 70s.)
The population will likely peak at about 9 billion, and then start to decrease. That may cause people to do bad things - or maybe the staving and thirsty will go peacefully.
Cue Libertarian moaning about how the government is the problem - and not, say, high barriers to entry in a captive market.
ARE THE PROBLEM
How are they the problem again? Oh, that's right, it's because it's typed in all-caps.
Yet another vacuous statement on government regulation from a conservative "not" job.