If Sarah Palin has the slightest idea what a “peer reviewed paper” is, I’ll eat a moose. Raw. Alive.
You want it to be, but it does not make it so. If the cases referred by the emails are not relevant, your hypothetical say so’s are even less.
Then point to the other emails that showed the same doubts on the consensus at CRU.
There’s nothing “hypothetical” about my “say so”. Palin quite literally stated that the climate experts tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. She was quite literally correct.
There’s not a single hypothetical in there; it’s just Palin making a 100% correct statement, followed by you making an unrelated claim.
Oh, I’m happy to discuss Trenberth – as per your quote, starting where it kicks off with a brisk “we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but…” That’s the key; what comes after the “but” is that context you’re on about, and what comes before the “but” is fodder for a truthful statement; it’s not the whole truth, as she’s not mentioning additional true information, but she’s accurate so long as she’s referencing that bit about how the “fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Yes, he goes on to say rather a lot of other stuff – but that doesn’t make her wrong. That’s why I’ve said throughout that she is (a) mentioning true information while (b) not mentioning additional true information.
Here, let me now introduce a hypothetical “say so” or two; you seem keen on the idea, maybe it’ll help. So: if I tell you the doctor said I should cut down on chocolate, that statement is true or false regardless of whether I then mention he also said I should cut down on red meat. If I tell you I saw a man shoot himself, that statement is true or false regardless of whether I go on to mention that someone else loaded the gun and handed it to him and told him to commit suicide. The statement stands or falls on its own.
Whar temperature rise, does the model predict? If CO2 eduction is of marginal benefit, then what wil be the inducement to educe the production of greenhouse gases?
Meh, more nitpicking with no debate. And I have doubts that you are clear on what “literally” means.
That was just a fancy way to say: “I have nothing”
Right back at you. Fortunately, we’re not at an impasse; we can see which of us is correct, it’ll only take a moment. You’re wrong about the former if you’re wrong about the latter, so let’s explore the latter for a moment.
Here’s what I wrote: “Palin quite literally stated that the climate experts tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.”
Palin, by comparison, wrote that the “climate ‘experts’ deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.”
So “literally” is being used correctly; my claim is what she stated. I therefore have well-founded doubts about whether you’re clear on what “literally” means; I used it to describe my exact copy-and-paste of what she set forth in words, such that your doubts are evidence against your own accuracy. You’ve thus demonstrably offered an ill-founded nitpick in lieu of debate, which is a fancy way to say you have nothing.
By contrast,
No, it was a straightforward way to say: “The statement was true.”
Quite literally, this is part of the peer review process, so I guess quite literally, every paper that has ever been rejected from being published in peer reviewed journals, has quite literally been silenced by it’s critics.
Yay! Science works!
We’re in mere agreement.
Good lord, could we actually have agreement in great debates? Is this a first. Should we hold hands and sing kumbaya or something?
We can do that, but first I would like you to show me this.
Where exactly in those e-mails does it reveal that they deliberately destroyed records?
“Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise” might be a good starting point.
OK, so once again it’s true, even though it has no real bearing on the validity of the science. Bringing it up, is just misleading and that’s not technically lying.
Here, hold my hand.
Well Americans are SO scientific.
http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_Inconvenient_Truth_Dan_Miller
We have educators that can’t figure out the obvious.
That was in the 80s. If Harvard graduates could not explain winter and summer then what are most people supposed to think. Oh they can’t think.
The very best education. LOL
The educators can’t figure out what information is important. Shakespeare is more important than physics. YEAH RIGHT!
psik