Pliny Posted March 21, 2010 Report Posted March 21, 2010 Woo Hoo! Waldo. That there is political interference in the AGW process is obviuos! Want proof! Ha! Ha! Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
waldo Posted March 21, 2010 Report Posted March 21, 2010 Woo Hoo! Waldo. That there is political interference in the AGW process is obviuos! Want proof! Ha! Ha! whaaaaa! Not another Pliny meltdown... you resurrect a 2 month old thread... and this is all you have to say? C'mon, Pliny... surely you actually have something else you really want to say... surely! C'mon, Pliny... you know you'll feel better - just take a deep breath, compose yourself and let it out. Quote
Pliny Posted March 22, 2010 Report Posted March 22, 2010 Just trying to keep the subject alive for ya, Waldo. It's a dying concern it seems. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
jbg Posted April 12, 2010 Report Posted April 12, 2010 Just trying to keep the subject alive for ya, Waldo. It's a dying concern it seems. More Waldo assistance. He' my main man. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted April 12, 2010 Report Posted April 12, 2010 More Waldo assistance. He' my main man. more fans! (methinks you're still smarting over my lil, "you're preaching from your mizbeiach" comeback... look, buddy, you opened the religious angle when you tossed the "preaching & religious zeolotry" barb in your drive-by) but let's reinforce your provided bump to refresh this 'Hackergate' thread with the British House of Commons exoneration of CRU/Phil Jones... good on ya, jbg! Quote
Pliny Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 more fans! (methinks you're still smarting over my lil, "you're preaching from your mizbeiach" comeback... look, buddy, you opened the religious angle when you tossed the "preaching & religious zeolotry" barb in your drive-by) but let's reinforce your provided bump to refresh this 'Hackergate' thread with the British House of Commons exoneration of CRU/Phil Jones... good on ya, jbg! The British House of Commons no less - a scientific consensus, no doubt. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
waldo Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 The British House of Commons no less - a scientific consensus, no doubt. Pliny... you should have addressed your concerns directly to the British House of Commons (HOC)... or more directly to the members of the HOC Science and Technology Committee, the body charged with an independent review over Hackergate... perhaps it's not too late - please send your concerns to any of these British politicians that currently form the HOC Science and Technology Committee: I trust you can ferret out their contact particulars... => Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair); Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham); Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry); Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole); Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire); Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon); Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East); Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South); Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West); Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point); Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles); Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley); Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown); Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East) Pliny, the committee sought... and received... world-wide submissions of concern. Perhaps your sour-grapes reflects your tardiness in not getting your submission sent/reviewed. Your emphasis on "scientific consensus" suggests you didn't quite grasp the review objectives... perhaps highlighting a few choice nuggets will bring that home for you! - the independent HOC review committee found absolutely no evidence to support accusations of dishonesty... going so far as to state that there “was no case to answer”. The independent HOC review committee also rejected accusations that Phil Jones and other CRU scientists had attempted to pervert the peer review system. Quote
Shady Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 The independent HOC review committee also rejected accusations that Phil Jones and other CRU scientists had attempted to pervert the peer review system. But it's clearly in their emails. They absolutely attempted to pervert the peer review system. Unless the peer review system is already open to purposeful silencing of dissenting opinions. "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!" - Phil Jones (email) How is this not an attempted perversion of the peer review system? Quote
waldo Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 How is this not an attempted perversion of the peer review system? Shady... did they also ignore your bolded font sized foot-stomping and teeth gnashing? I suggest you take it up with the independent British HOC committee that looked at all the emails and reviewed them in context, action, intent and result. Oh woe are the denied Hackergate aficionados of fabrication! Quote
bloodyminded Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Shady... did they also ignore your bolded font sized foot-stomping and teeth gnashing? I suggest you take it up with the independent British HOC committee that looked at all the emails and reviewed them in context, action, intent and result. Oh woe are the denied Hackergate aficionados of fabrication! Context? Context??? You're trying to confuse the issue with matters of context, intent and effect? Not too friendly. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shady Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Context? Context??? Context? The context is them trying to disqualify dissenting global warming opinions from being part of the IPCC report. That's the context. If that isn't perverting the peer review process, what is? Who you gonna believe? The British HOC, or your lying eyes! The British HOC can suggest whatever they want, it doesn't mean it's right or true. Quote
waldo Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 Context? The context is them trying to disqualify dissenting global warming opinions from being part of the IPCC report. That's the context. If that isn't perverting the peer review process, what is? Who you gonna believe? The British HOC, or your lying eyes! The British HOC can suggest whatever they want, it doesn't mean it's right or true. yes, context bundled around intent, action and result. Notwithstanding your general level of emotional instability, these recent days have seen you even quicker off your usual mark in labeling others as liars... first punked, now bloodyminded. Is there a problem? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 But it's clearly in their emails. They absolutely attempted to pervert the peer review system. Unless the peer review system is already open to purposeful silencing of dissenting opinions. "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!" - Phil Jones (email) How is this not an attempted perversion of the peer review system? It might not be. If they were able to convince the editors that the paper wasn't even worthy of publication, then it might be within reason for them to discuss and even lobby the editor to not publish the papers. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 It might not be. If they were able to convince the editors that the paper wasn't even worthy of publication, then it might be within reason for them to discuss and even lobby the editor to not publish the papers. from the little I know of the process that is routine, a Paper must meet certain criteria to be published, I don't know what they are and they may differ from one journal to the next...I know of one person in an unrelated field who had her paper rejected several times because it was lacking in some way... I would think Journals are judged by the quality of the papers they publish, if the evidence presented is crap the journal ends up looking like those general info/science magazines you find in Chapters, if their reputation suffers serious scientists will pass them by... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 I would think Journals are judged by the quality of the papers they publish, if the evidence presented is crap the journal ends up looking like those general info/science magazines you find in Chapters, if their reputation suffers serious scientists will pass them by... And my understanding is that journals are under pressure to print papers from skeptics, which results in changed standards, and all the attendant arguing and lobbying that goes with that. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 And my understanding is that journals are under pressure to print papers from skeptics, which results in changed standards, and all the attendant arguing and lobbying that goes with that. I recall reading some time ago about a skepic submission to a journal that was rejected and all the fallout that resulted from the rejection...the rejection stated that the paper presented no new evidence it was more a politcal rant... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Shady Posted April 13, 2010 Report Posted April 13, 2010 "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!" - Phil Jones (email) Here. I'll help those of you not understanding the implications of this quote, with a more palatable example. Let's pretend George W Bush said the following: "I can't see either of these sources being in the next Iraq WMD report. Dick and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what Iraq WMD intelligence is!" Is that clear enough for you? Would you drones be asking in what context this was said? Would you be making excuses? I think we all know the answer to those questions, don't we?! Get your heads out of your asses people. Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 Cause we're going to trust someone who has kept a qoute mine in his sig even after having it pointed out to him. Quote
waldo Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 "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!"- Phil Jones (email) Here. I'll help those of you not understanding the implications of this quote, with a more palatable example. "I can't see either of these sources being in the next Iraq WMD report. Dick and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what Iraq WMD intelligence is!" Is that clear enough for you? Would you drones be asking in what context this was said? Would you be making excuses? I think we all know the answer to those questions, don't we?! Get your heads out of your asses people. Shady, good on ya... that's an excellent comparison that really drives home the distinction! - on one hand we have Phil Jones, who didn't act on his impulsive reaction to bad science within the 2 referenced papers... the papers that ultimately were referenced within the IPCC report, and - on the other hand we have Dubya who did, unfortunately, act to redefine what Iraq WMD intelligence was... you know, that really darn good intelligence! carry on... with, as you said, your head up your ass Quote
waldo Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 Cause we're going to trust someone who has kept a quote mine in his sig even after having it pointed out to him. no worries - Shady likes to flaunt his intellectual dishonesty. At some point he'll tire and realize it's yesterday's fabricated news. In the meantime we can all just continue to snicker at, Shady just being Shady. Quote
Pliny Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) Is that clear enough for you? Would you drones be asking in what context this was said? Would you be making excuses? I think we all know the answer to those questions, don't we?! Get your heads out of your asses people. Shady, good on ya... that's an excellent comparison that really drives home the distinction! - on one hand we have Phil Jones, who didn't act on his impulsive reaction to bad science within the 2 referenced papers... the papers that ultimately were referenced within the IPCC report, and - on the other hand we have Dubya who did, unfortunately, act to redefine what Iraq WMD intelligence was... you know, that really darn good intelligence! carry on... with, as you said, your head up your ass Gosh! Bill and Hillary and even John Kerry tried to do that. George must have pulled the wool over their eyes. He can be convincing I guess. Any way the only reason America went along with George on this issue was the Democrats agreed with him. You are exhibiting the fault Shady points out - making excuses and asking for context on a very clear statement. Do you not understand the statement or is Phil Jones your Pope on the pedestal and infallible? If you consider there is no merit to the debate then why do you even bother keeping it alive? Methinks thou dost protest too much. Edited April 14, 2010 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Shady Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 Shady, good on ya... that's an excellent comparison that really drives home the distinction! I'm glad you think so. I do as well. on one hand we have Phil Jones, who didn't act on his impulsive reaction I'm also glad that you agree that the intent was there, he just didn't act on it, as far as we know. Because the intent to pervert the peer review process is still very important. I think a very reasonable question to ask is what other studies and papers has this intention of silencing been attempted or contemplated to? Cherrypicking the intelligence...er...science is a very serious issue. Quote
waldo Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 Gosh! Bill and Hillary and even John Kerry tried to do that. George must have pulled the wool over their eyes. He can be convincing I guess. Any way the only reason America went along with George on this issue was the Democrats agreed with him. save your revisionism for the actual threads that speak to the illegality of the Dubya invasion of Iraq... predicated upon the manufactured WMD evidence that Shady's imaginary quote reference makes very precisely. You can also revise those many statements from U.S. Democrats that indicate they wouldn't have agreed... without the manufactured WMD evidence... the best darn intelligence Dubya needed! Like I said, take it to the other thread(s). You are exhibiting the fault Shady points out - making excuses and asking for context on a very clear statement. Do you not understand the statement or is Phil Jones your Pope on the pedestal and infallible? apparently, that independent investigation that reviewed the Hackergate emails, in context, in bundled association to action, intent and result... apparently... that independent investigation exonerated CRU and Phil Jones. Oh, woe is the plight of the failed denier... the denier's wailing and gnashing of teeth... not a pretty sight! Quote
waldo Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 I'm glad you think so. I do as well. I'm also glad that you agree that the intent was there, he just didn't act on it, as far as we know. Because the intent to pervert the peer review process is still very important. I think a very reasonable question to ask is what other studies and papers has this intention of silencing been attempted or contemplated to? Cherrypicking the intelligence...er...science is a very serious issue. you should be the very last person on earth to suggest emotional based statements presume intent. You are certainly invited to step up and echo your denier chamber... you could certainly step up and show just which papers Phil Jones denied within IPCC reports. You could do that - the long since dispatched Riverwind tried to do exactly that, although not specifically related to Phil Jones... ah, good times! We had some fun with that blatant but failed attempt, hey Shady? rather than continue your standard intellectually dishonest, Shady practice (pun intended), step up and state the papers Phil Jones denied within IPCC reports. Here's the thing, lil' buddy, the proceeding of the IPCC committees are fully transparent - all related comments are online. There are literally "thousands" of cited references to scientific papers, "hundreds" of which are so-called "skeptical" in nature, given that IPCC reports reflect the state of science at the point of report publication. Any paper reviewed, brought forward for consideration, is reflected within the online transcripts of the proceedings of the respective IPCC committees. step up and stop your standard Shady practice... state which papers Phil Jones has prevented from appearing within IPCC reports. Quote
Pliny Posted April 14, 2010 Report Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) you should be the very last person on earth to suggest emotional based statements presume intent. You are certainly invited to step up and echo your denier chamber... you could certainly step up and show just which papers Phil Jones denied within IPCC reports. You could do that - the long since dispatched Riverwind tried to do exactly that, although not specifically related to Phil Jones... ah, good times! We had some fun with that blatant but failed attempt, hey Shady? rather than continue your standard intellectually dishonest, Shady practice (pun intended), step up and state the papers Phil Jones denied within IPCC reports. Here's the thing, lil' buddy, the proceeding of the IPCC committees are fully transparent - all related comments are online. There are literally "thousands" of cited references to scientific papers, "hundreds" of which are so-called "skeptical" in nature, given that IPCC reports reflect the state of science at the point of report publication. Any paper reviewed, brought forward for consideration, is reflected within the online transcripts of the proceedings of the respective IPCC committees. step up and stop your standard Shady practice... state which papers Phil Jones has prevented from appearing within IPCC reports. Are you a member of the British Parliament,perhaps? One of the good old boys. As a postscript: Why don't you say you are just a political activist. Edited April 14, 2010 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.