tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post2388217231114246419..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Is the Opposition to Climate Change Ecological or Technological?Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-75961959553408592062011-01-07T04:07:30.843-05:002011-01-07T04:07:30.843-05:00'Singring, I've been observed you in recen...'Singring, I've been observed you in recent debate with Martin, Thomas, and others on philosophical issues, and have concluded that you simply don't know when you're licked.'<br /><br />So you didn't even bother to check it out and then give me a whole laundry list of excuses for why you were too layz to do so.<br /><br />Precisely what I expected.<br /><br />Denial 101.<Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-15675463840200552912011-01-07T04:03:34.079-05:002011-01-07T04:03:34.079-05:00'The big-government types, including the House...'The big-government types, including the House of Commons, see opportunity to be had in promoting big-government agenda, such as higher taxes, more regulation, and ultimately more control, not to mention solidifying their base of support among leftie greens.'<br /><br />I honestly can't believe that an educated person aware of politics could hold this absurd position. In the past 30 Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-40748512112030183282011-01-07T01:18:24.252-05:002011-01-07T01:18:24.252-05:00> P.S.: Check out the 'best posts of 2010&#...> P.S.: Check out the 'best posts of 2010' to see exacxtly how you and all the other deniers are being duped by fragrant misrepresentation of data.<br /><br />Singring, I've been observed you in recent debate with Martin, Thomas, and others on philosophical issues, and have concluded that you simply don't know when you're licked. If you were a prizefighter, somebody in a Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-64181901033220391612011-01-07T01:00:23.995-05:002011-01-07T01:00:23.995-05:00> Lee, you just suggested the House of Commons ...> Lee, you just suggested the House of Commons deliberately lied when they said there was no evidence of wrongdoing. I think when you start claiming that entire governmental bodies are covering up evidence you are deep into conspiracy theory territory.<br /><br />There may be such a conspiracy, but I am not positing one, or at least not a vast one -- nor is my argument dependent on one, any Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-40364822821388300662011-01-06T09:40:05.440-05:002011-01-06T09:40:05.440-05:00'The House of Commons *says* it found no such ...'The House of Commons *says* it found no such evidence. There's a difference.'<br /><br />LOL.<br /><br />So now the entire British House of Commons is in on this vast conspiracy?<br /><br />And probably some of them are alien shapechangers who want to invade earth...<br /><br />'If it's real, how come so many G/W proponents live like Rockefeller?'<br /><br />Could you Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56381411715111473212011-01-06T08:13:25.718-05:002011-01-06T08:13:25.718-05:00> If you want to choose the latter over the for...> If you want to choose the latter over the former as a basis for evaluating a situation, go right ahead. It makes you look the dogmatist you are.<br /><br />You're projecting, now. I have not been dogmatizing.<br /><br />> There is a big difference between soimeone talking in eMails about trying to gte someone fired and actually doing it. <br /><br />Apparently, they communicated Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4602094821316848712011-01-05T14:08:33.514-05:002011-01-05T14:08:33.514-05:00'So now, the issue is whether the opinion is b...'So now, the issue is whether the opinion is balanced, not whether it's correct?'<br /><br />You asked me why I trust a multi-partisan report over a single anecdote from a slanted think tank. If you want to choose the latter over the former as a basis for evaluating a situation, go right ahead. It makes you look the dogmatist you are.<br /><br />'Trying to get someone fired is notSingringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79662280921078612172011-01-05T12:38:41.127-05:002011-01-05T12:38:41.127-05:00> The house of commons is made up of socialist,...> The house of commons is made up of socialist, liberal and conservative MPs. It is definitely more balanced in is views han a libertarian think tank that does nothing but churn out anti GW opinion. <br /><br />So now, the issue is whether the opinion is balanced, not whether it's correct? Excuse me, then, why I recalibrate the machinery. All set? Then here goes: from now on, Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-14087056014739942982011-01-05T04:49:40.770-05:002011-01-05T04:49:40.770-05:00'1. Can't understand why I should dismiss ...'1. Can't understand why I should dismiss anything Cato says as Daffy Duck-worthy, and accept everything said by the House of Commons without further criticism. Is the House of Commons more scientifically knowledgable? Or less political?'<br /><br />The house of commons is made up of socialist, liberal and conservative MPs. It is definitely more balanced in is views han a libertarian Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-16463725859827438112011-01-04T23:55:27.174-05:002011-01-04T23:55:27.174-05:00My last word on Singringian diversions, in any eve...My last word on Singringian diversions, in any event. Somehow, Thomas' finer points have been lost in all this discussion.<br /><br />I think I disagree with this statement:<br /><br />> Climate change advocacy warns of an apocalypse that will end life as we know it, precisely because it seeks to protect life as we live it. <br /><br />I don't see it that way. Quite the opposite. I Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-67431720704031043882011-01-04T23:34:10.531-05:002011-01-04T23:34:10.531-05:00A couple of other points, to wrap up:
1. Can'...A couple of other points, to wrap up:<br /><br />1. Can't understand why I should dismiss anything Cato says as Daffy Duck-worthy, and accept everything said by the House of Commons without further criticism. Is the House of Commons more scientifically knowledgable? Or less political?<br /><br />2. Are you willing to admit yet that scientists are, like anyone else who must earn a living, Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-19291777062478351042011-01-04T23:25:46.142-05:002011-01-04T23:25:46.142-05:00Kelemen continued, regarding the quote I cited ear...Kelemen continued, regarding the quote I cited earlier: "Related to this is a comment that one correspondent would not let critics' papers be discussed in an upcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stating that "[we] will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" The RealClimate web site notes that Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-8427030151223234902011-01-04T23:22:45.147-05:002011-01-04T23:22:45.147-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-92198679958113775322011-01-04T23:20:13.921-05:002011-01-04T23:20:13.921-05:00Regarding the quote I used earlier in the thread, ...Regarding the quote I used earlier in the thread, Kelemen wrote: "Related to this is a comment that one correspondent would not let critics' papers be discussed in an upcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stating that "[we] will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" The RealClimate web site Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-74726456518557191052011-01-04T23:00:21.257-05:002011-01-04T23:00:21.257-05:00I found an interesting article online at Popular M...I found an interesting article online at Popular Mechanics by Peter Kelemen, identified as a professor of geochemistry...<br /><br />http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/4338343<br /><br />I knew nothing about Kelemen before reading the article, and little about him now, but I found his observations to be pretty close from what I had gleaned reading conservative Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36121360237057985972011-01-04T09:04:30.306-05:002011-01-04T09:04:30.306-05:00'You said there is there was no evidence of in...'You said there is there was no evidence of interfering with peer review. I presented such evidence.'<br /><br />No, sorry. I didn't say that - the Hous of Commons investigation report said that. <br /><br />You presented a very small amount of evidence for bias in a report that includes peer-reviewed literature, not evidence of biased peer-review in and of itself. The papers in Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-41393897079331862612011-01-04T08:17:35.459-05:002011-01-04T08:17:35.459-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-32401018584723849142011-01-04T08:17:24.913-05:002011-01-04T08:17:24.913-05:00Whoa. I never set out here to prove a conspiracy....Whoa. I never set out here to prove a conspiracy. I have learned that, in any discussion with Singring, one must keep the points very simple and basic, and then stick to them -- otherwise you open yourself to vast quantities of handwaving, not to mention gratuitous ad hominem.<br /><br />You said there is there was no evidence of interfering with peer review. I presented such evidence. It is Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-25261769909970825122011-01-04T08:04:57.705-05:002011-01-04T08:04:57.705-05:00'If so, then scientists are as vulnerable to p...'If so, then scientists are as vulnerable to pressure as anyone else.'<br /><br />Pressure from <i>whom</i>?<br /><br />The Bogeyman?<br /><br />So you deny that...<br /><br />'> "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is'"<br /><br />...means that he and Kevin will keep them out somehow even if they have Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-1524636043341862442011-01-04T07:56:17.524-05:002011-01-04T07:56:17.524-05:00So you deny that...
> "Kevin and I will k...So you deny that...<br /><br />> "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is'"<br /><br />...means that he and Kevin will keep them out somehow even if they have to redefine what the peer-review literature is?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-19435920424235668572011-01-04T07:53:26.510-05:002011-01-04T07:53:26.510-05:00> Intimidation of critics? This is ridiculous. ...> Intimidation of critics? This is ridiculous. No scientist worth his salt will let himself be 'intimidated'!... It is an absurd allegation.<br /><br />Do scientists not work for a paycheck? Do they not have professional reputations upon which their livelihoods depend? Do they not have bills to pay, children to feed? If so, then scientists are as vulnerable to pressure as anyone Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34329874587306632512011-01-04T07:51:50.873-05:002011-01-04T07:51:50.873-05:00'I can't see either of these papers being ...'I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is'<br /><br />1.) This eMail actually disprove your point. If they were interfereing with the peer-review process then they hardly would have had to prevent these papers from being in the report - they could have just Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-2832125856231932462011-01-04T06:54:07.401-05:002011-01-04T06:54:07.401-05:00From Phil Jones:
> "I can't see eithe...From Phil Jones:<br /><br />> "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"<br /><br />This isn't evidence?<br /><br />From Patrick Michaels at Cato:<br /><br />> One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-75484825578529128582011-01-04T05:43:52.651-05:002011-01-04T05:43:52.651-05:00'From memory, the facts that stood out in my m...'From memory, the facts that stood out in my mind were interference with the peer review process and intimidation of critics.'<br /><br />A couple of things:<br /><br />1.) No evidence of messing with peer review was found and all authors of those eMails were exonerated of those accusations by the House of Commons report in the UK.<br /><br />Both of these articles in the Economist (Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79357228463749999902011-01-04T00:35:09.973-05:002011-01-04T00:35:09.973-05:00I read that as follows, and Art is invited to corr...<i>I read that as follows, and Art is invited to correct me if I read him wrong: There was a certain lock-step political correctness with a Bolshevik flavor in the USSR that tended to discourage real science and encourage bogus science that was more palatable to the communist leadership. </i><br /><br />Um, no. I refer to the primacy of the social construct - the state, the economy, or whatever Arthttp://www.aghunt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com