# I weep for Americans (Global warming poll). **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 23, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881 "2009-10-23T17:24:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/161 "2009-10-28T04:43:41Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Look, you mendacious sack of filth, show some balls here. Meh. I deal with inner city kids that could send the gangs on me, besides I knew the job was dangerous when I took it. You are barking up the wrong tree. In this pit I just needed to show that you resort to conspiracy theories to explain away the failure of defeating guys like Mann in the research world. Grow a pair. Go bark at the right tree. The biggest foolish thing was to suppose that a pit discussion was going to be meaningful for your cause. ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/162 "2009-10-28T04:49:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html) > > Well, the point of the reply was just to deal with the curious meme that goes like “Chinese or Hindus are not worrying about this so we are the only worrywarts”, I still think that they should do more, but I’m a realist. Not much will be done until even more evidence is piled up by 2025. > > And I notice that that \*\*Intention \*\*just went into full conspiracy mode again. Sad. Is this real enough? [http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/](http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/) I couldn’t give a shit about CO2…what needs to be done is to deal with facilities emitting the horrific kinds of emissions that these Chinese plants are doing right now. But I guess CO2 is the real culprit…:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/163 "2009-10-28T05:06:34Z")
> [@ManiacMan](#): > > Is this real enough? > > [http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/](http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/) > > I couldn’t give a shit about CO2…what needs to be done is to deal with facilities emitting the horrific kinds of emissions that these Chinese plants are doing right now. But I guess CO2 is the real culprit…:rolleyes: Yes it is real, next question. Or did you forgot that I said that they are not doing enough or that I was referring just to the CO2 issue? What makes you think I would not care also about the criminal nature of a good chunk of the development in China? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/164 "2009-10-28T06:38:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh. > > I deal with inner city kids that could send the gangs on me, besides I knew the job was dangerous when I took it. > > You are barking up the wrong tree. In this pit I just needed to show that you resort to conspiracy theories to explain away the failure of defeating guys like Mann in the research world. > > Grow a pair. Go bark at the right tree. The biggest foolish thing was to suppose that a pit discussion was going to be meaningful for your cause. I would like everyone to note that, having made a false, scurrilous and libellous accusation about Steve McIntyre, who is a decent and honest man, **GIGO who believes in AGW** refuses to provide a single citation to back it up. Not one. He also doesn’t have the balls to say he was wrong. Instead, he wants to distract you from the issue with “funny” lines about “inner city kids” and fantasies that I resort to “conspiracy theories”. I would also like to note that upthread I falsely accused **GIGO who believes in AGW** and **L. G. Butts, Ph.D.** of wanting to waste money on Kyoto rather than put it into something useful. When they pointed out the fact that what I said was not true, I sincerely apologized to both of them for my actions. I was wrong, and when I found out I was wrong, I did what most of you do in that situation — I admitted my error and I apologized to those I had wrongfully accused. I invite everyone to remember this whole incident the next time **GIGO who believes in AGW** opens his dishonest and deceitful mouth. He is quite willing to lie, is unable to provide citations for the bullshit he is trying to peddle, and will not admit it when he is caught stealing red-handed from the ethical till. Fortunately, most AGW supporters are not like that, most are honest people. But don’t mistake **GIGO** for an honest person. He is an unrepentant and unregenerate liar who takes no responsibility for his words. He is all to happy to libel a good man’s reputation, even at the cost of his own. He is not only willing to cut off his own nose to spite his face, he thinks it is a triumph of modern plastic surgery. So I’ll now bid **GIGO** goodbye. As the old adage says, never wrestle with a pig — you both get dirty, but the pig likes the filth … so I’ll let him continue his lying ways without further comment from me. Through his actions in this thread, he has revealed his own pathetic true nature far better than my own poor words ever could. However, I’m happy to discuss these matters with anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/165 "2009-10-28T07:01:05Z")
Meh, in the links at DeepClimate cite they mention where McIntyre made the allegation. > **[Climate “auditor” Steve McIntyre: Yamal like “crack cocaine”](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/)** > > By now, anyone who follows the climate blog wars knows that a new battle is underway over the standard temperature reconstruction popularly known as the “hockey stick”. Although it has … > [@](#): > > Yet McIntyre’s supporters suggest that McIntyre himself can not be held responsible for such excesses. Roger Pielke Jr., ever ready to defend McIntyre against real climate scientists exonerated McIntyre, pointing to a belated clarification from McIntyre: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > I don’t wish to unintentionally feed views that I don’t hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked. My guess is that the Russians selected a limited number of 200-400 year trees – that’s what they say – a number that might well have been appropriate for their purpose and that Briffa inherited their selection … [Emphasis added by Pielke] > > > > ``` > > But not so fast. Here’s “Bishop Hill”, in the very account of the Yamal affair fulsomely recommended by Pielke. > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Without an explanation of how the selection of this sample of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of `cherrypicking’ would linger over the study, although it is true to say that Hantemirov also had very few cores in the equivalent period, so it is possible that this selection had been due to the Russian and not Briffa. > > > > ``` > > Now where did he get the idea that cherry-picking might be a possible issue? Well, when McIntyre presented his initial analysis of the Yamal chronologies on September 26 he noted: > > > [@](#): > > > > I presume that these 17 ring-width series from living larches are a sample from a larger program on living larches. This graphic shows the use of over 30 cores from about 600 to 1500 and the use of about 17 cores in the 19th and 20th century (presumably the 17 cores from living trees.) … > > > > ``` > > Rob Wilson could do that in an hour. What about the rest of the Yamal data? Where is it? > > > > To what extent is the Yamal HS a product of the selection process and to what extent is it climatic? Without the complete data set, it is impossible to set aside the troubling thoughts that one is faced with in these circumstances. [Emphasis added] > > > > ``` > > The obvious inference was, as Ross McKitrick put it in a subsequent comment, that the 20th century “sub-sample” had not been, ahem, “randomly selected”. > > In subsequent comments, McIntyre continued to insist that someone, whether Briffa or the Russian team, had possibly “cherry-picked”, or at least not “randomly selected”, the Yamal living tree sub-sample: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > As to whether the selection was previously made by Hantemirov and Shiyatov or not – I discussed this in the previous post and noted that there was evidence that the selection might have been made by them. > > > > ``` > > Of course, soon after Briffa confirmed that the underlying data set he used was exactly the same as the Russian team (but processed differently), and that, in general, he “did not select tree-core samples based on comparison with climate data”. > > In the face of that forthright assertion, and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of a more complete living tree sample to be “cherry-picked”, McIntyre “moved on”. I was not bothering to point it to you because you already demonstrated how hopeless you are on investigating sources, I wanted to see how far you would trip and you did not disappoint. 🙂 Finally, when I say to go bark up the right tree it is referring to my usual advice to mislead fellows, it is not to guys like Mann that your barking should go but to guys like McIntyre that are deceiving you. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/166 "2009-10-28T08:40:21Z")
Ah, well, back to the pig wrestling, GIGO’s nonsense has to be at least protested so the credulous are not fooled … From my [cite above](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7257) (emphasis mine): [QUOTE=Steve McIntyre] In a comment to the same post, I clearly stated my view that there was no crude cherrypicking of the type that Briffa accuses me of implying. I stated : > [@](#): > > bender, I agree with your point. I’ve tried to steer a careful line here. If you think otherwise, can you give me particulars as I don’t wish to unintentionally feed views that I don’t hold. _ **It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.** _ My guess is that the Russians selected a limited number of 200-400 year trees - that’s what they say - a number that might well have been appropriate for their purpose and that Briffa inherited their selection - a selection which proved to be far from random and which, as you and I agree, falls vastly short of standards in the field for RCS chronology (as opposed to corridor or spline chronologies). [/QUOTE] What part of “It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.” don’t you understand? He said it because he felt he was being misrepresented, so that it would be clear even to people like you. In your citation, Steve says that if you don’t release all of the data, people can’t tell if you cherry picked what you used or not … sorry, GIGO, that’s not an accusation of cherry picking. That’s a fact. If you don’t release all the data, there is no way to determine if you are cherry picking. Or as Steve said, > [@](#): > > Without the complete data set, it is impossible to set aside the troubling thoughts that one is faced with in these circumstances. If you can’t understand the difference between saying that if the data is unavailable (for whatever reason) there is no way to tell if you are cheating or not, and an accusation that you are cheating, you are not only a liar. You are a stupid liar. That’s why Nature and Science have policies requiring the archiving of all of the data. So we can tell if someone is cheating or not. Which Briffa, as you point out, kinda complied with … partially … after ten years of requests … And you think that’s science? The mind boggles. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/167 "2009-10-28T08:51:05Z")
> [@intention](#): > > You are a stupid liar. Nope, I also decided not to post the moments and comments where he does refer to the cherry picking. Hint: they are on the rest of the link in my post. But I also did it because I knew you would fell for it by not checking the rest of the linked page. Pathetic, but just as predictable. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/168 "2009-10-28T09:11:17Z")
And just to show that I’m not just pretending that the “traps” were set and that you are still falling for it, you should had found already that McIntire did had the data. Should I bother to mention to this “climate researcher that doesn’t do anything” where the link that points to how clueless he is? Again?.. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/169 "2009-10-28T14:44:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Hey **heatmiserfl** I got Snow Miser on the line! And he is really mad! > > 😃 > > Seriously, it is good to see others paying attention. Thanks for the mentions. Oh, Snowmiser is jus jellus of my great hairdo. Anyway, people should make a choice. Who’s ‘opinion’ carries more weight. Some dude with ties to the mining industry who’s not a climate scientist (eg. McIntyre), anonymous message board people or climate scientists and the vast majority of scientists of good repute in related fields. And really, the real debate should be how to handle the situation. That’s where there a lots of unknowns and possibly disastrous courses of action. When energies are wasted on these distractions, politicians may, with the best of intentions, make horrible policies (eg. pushing corn ethanol, IMO). I think this should be the focus. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/170 "2009-10-28T19:39:40Z")
> [@ManiacMan](#): > > Is this real enough? > > [http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/](http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/) > > I couldn’t give a shit about CO2…what needs to be done is to deal with facilities emitting the horrific kinds of emissions that these Chinese plants are doing right now. But I guess CO2 is the real culprit…:rolleyes: What’s your point? (Nice pictures BTW. Thanks for the link.) This thread has been really amusing for me, it is just chock full of the type of shit I was pitting. Look, just because the Chinese are dumping all kinds of crap into the water and air, does not mean that global warming is not happening **which is the entire point of this thread.** I don’t believe there has been anybody in this thread that has made calls to cut our greenhouse gas emissions, but this what you seem to be hung up on. If you want to pit the doom sayers that are calling for immediate cessation of fossil fuel consumption, go for it. If you want to pit the Chinese for poisoning their citizenry, go for it (though we did the same thing as we were industrializing. I can show you pictures from the early 20th century America and Western Europe and pictures from the last 50 years in Eastern Europe that look very similar. What do you want to do, tell them they have to go back to their farms?). This thread is about the whole anti-science movement in America and the prevailing view that science is just opinions. This thread is about the politicization of science. This thread is about people like **intention** (who, BTW, I wish to thank for participating in this thread and giving me soooooo much amusement), who will latch on to one peice of evidence and state that this invalidates all the research to date ( **intention** , it’s like you’re a creationist or something) when all it is is another data point. An interesting one, sure, but not definitive in and of itself. This thread is about those people who are willing to accept the opinion of a small group of people, some of whom are scientists, many with ties to petroleum industry, over the vast majority of scientists in a variety of fields with **thousands** of peer reviewed studies that show the effects of global climate change (including all the things I mentioned in my OP like disappearing glaciers, melting permafrost, melting poles, species migrating northward and up in elevation, earlier and longer growing seasons, lakes and waterways melting earlier, etc…). So, for the purpose of this thread, I don’t give a shit about China and whether they are doing anything about Climate change. We could have a rational discussion about whether they should, or we should, or even whether developing countries in Africa should, and you know what, you and I would probably agree on the answer, albeit for different reasons. And that is because it is not clear to me, or for that matter it is not clear to most rational people who have thought about it, that [ol] [li]We can do anything to stop or slow the warming appreciably (due to the time constant of the carbon cycle, the behavior of countries like China and India, and the non-linear complex nature of global climate, etc…).[/li][li]Climate change is going to be necessarily bad for humanity as a whole or for the U.S. specifically. (Note, this says nothing about people living in Bangladesh or other tropical, coastal countries). There is evidence that says it could be bad, but it is far from conclusive at this point.[/li][li]Hi Opal.[/li][li]That if we decided, as a global population, to cut carbon emissions, that we could cut them deep enough to have any effect.[/li][li]That if we decided, as a global population, to cut carbon emissions, that this “cure” wouldn’t be worse than the “disease” for many people due primarily to population pressures and the low standard of living of the vast majority of the world population.[/li][li]That if the industrialized countries (specifically the US and Western Europe) decided to cut our carbon emissions, that the efforts to do so would have a net negative economic impact.[/li][li]That the invisible hand of the market may not just fix the problem due to increasing costs of ever diminishing supplies of fossil fuels.[/li][li]That a natural effect, heretofore overlooked, will stop and reverse the warming making the whole debate null and void. [/li][/ol] We just don’t know all these things, and people who say they do are lying, guessing, simplifying, or they have a political agenda. But we do know that the Earth has been fucking warming. The evidence is manifold, regardless of **intention** ’s ability to find conflicting evidence in one or two peer reviewed studies. He can go ahead and use these studies to disagree with the thousands of scientists (including the scientists that authored the studies he is using) that feel confident that global climate change is occurring. You can even agree with him if you want, I don’t care. But if you do, then this pit thread is about **you** too, and I can only believe that you are stupid or have an agenda. At this point, there is just no reason to deny that climate change is occurring, just like there is no reason to deny the fact that evolution happens or that mass vaccination is an effective method for controlling disease. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/171 "2009-10-29T08:01:22Z")
[QUOTE=L. G.] But we do know that the Earth has been fucking warming. The evidence is manifold, regardless of **intention’s** ability to find conflicting evidence in one or two peer reviewed studies. [/QUOTE] Hmmm … let’s review the bidding. I said that overall the earth warmed over the 20th century. I said it was warming in 1988, and that it was cooling in 1970. Which is why Stephen Schneider was predicting an upcoming ice age in 1970. I said it is not warming now, and that this has been noted by Science Magazine, although it certainly might start up again. I said it has warmed since the Little Ice Age in the 1600s. I said it warmed from 1910 to 1945. So yes, the earth has been warming, and it has been cooling, since there has been an earth. At any given time it is either warming, or cooling, or neither. For the last ten years, it has been neither. For the last century, it has been warming. Over the last 10,000 years, it has been cooling, we’re currently at the cold end of the Holocene. Since the last interglacial (~ 125,000 year ago) it has been cooling. Since 1750, it has been warming. Is this so hard to understand? Or as the headline of the article in Science said, … “What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit”. Which means the earth is not warming now, duh, but some scientists say that the warming will return. Yes, the earth “has been fucking warming”, and it also has been fucking cooling, since the dawn of the earth. But as Science says … right now, it’s not doing either. It is interesting how every time the earth either warms or cools for a decade or so, somebody like L. G. Butts or Stephen Schneider or the US Weather Bureau jumps up and down to tell us that we’re going to either [freeze or burn](http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp), that we’re off to climate hell in a handbasket. Here’s the latest: [QUOTE=US Weather Bureau] The arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the arctic zone. Expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. [/QUOTE] Oh, wait, I read the date on that quotation wrong, it’s actually from 1922 … I don’t mind being attacked for what I have said. Being attacked for not saying what I have said, however, is a curious tactic on your part. The earth has been warming … and it has been cooling. I have said both. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/172 "2009-10-29T16:38:28Z")
Hmmmm…on one side we have the IPCC report, a carefully vetted, multi-year effort which takes a look at all the data available. On the other side, we have crackpots and people who don’t understand the term “statistical trend”. Decisions, decisions. Who shall I believe? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/173 "2009-10-29T20:49:43Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Hmmmm…on one side we have the IPCC report, a carefully vetted, multi-year effort which takes a look at all the data available. > > On the other side, we have crackpots and people who don’t understand the term “statistical trend”. > > Decisions, decisions. Who shall I believe? Well, you might start with [Richard Lindzen](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf), the Alfred Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT … Or on the other hand, you could go with the [consensus](http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html). ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/174 "2009-10-29T21:29:48Z")
Michael Crichton? Really? Or how about I go with Nobel laureate, winner of both the Great Medal of the Academy of Sciences of France and the US National Medal of Science, and former co-chair of the scientific panel of the IPCC, [Dr. Susan Solomon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon)? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/175 "2009-10-29T22:59:43Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Michael Crichton? Really? > > Or how about I go with Nobel laureate, winner of both the Great Medal of the Academy of Sciences of France and the US National Medal of Science, and former co-chair of the scientific panel of the IPCC, [Dr. Susan Solomon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon)? Go with whoever you want … but Susan Solomon? The woman who thinks that there is no reason to be [transparent](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640) at the IPCC? The woman who thinks that we should just believe what the IPCC says and we should not ask [inconvenient questions](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1796)? Well, it’s your choice. Me, I go with science, that is to say evidence and replicable studies, not with [argument from authority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). But like I said, if you want to believe Susan Solomon because of her impressive CV, and ignore her reprehensible actions, it’s up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/176 "2009-10-29T23:13:51Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Go with whoever you want … but Susan Solomon? The woman who thinks that there is no reason to be [transparent](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640) at the IPCC? The woman who thinks that we should just believe what the IPCC says and we should not ask [inconvenient questions](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1796)? Well, it’s your choice. > > Me, I go with science, that is to say evidence and replicable studies, not with [argument from authority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). But like I said, if you want to believe Susan Solomon because of her impressive CV, and ignore her reprehensible actions, it’s up to you. Your hypocrisy is amusing, Richard “More Money, Please, Exxon-Mobil!” Lindzen-lover. Also, your interpretations of Dr. Solomon’s responses are…silly. No reason to be transparent? > [@](#): > > This is in response to your several messages regarding the IPCC review process. > > First, as has already been explained to you in previous correspondence, your interpretation of IPCC procedures in relation to what is made available to reviewers is not correct. The term “materials referenced” used in our rules is unambiguously defined by the list of such “references” given at the end of each chapter. The term does not extend beyond those cited references to such material as datasets, computer codes, or other sources of information that those papers may themselves cite or use. As has already been detailed for you by Dr. Manning, the IPCC does not and cannot provide datasets associated with each of the papers cited in the review, whether published or unpublished. > > In order to access the IPCC review material you explicitly agreed to our conditions for doing so which include the following: > “This site also provides access to copies of some submitted, in-press, or otherwise unpublished papers and reports that are cited in the draft WG I report. All such material is made available only to support the review of the IPCC drafts. These works are not themselves subject to the IPCC review process and are not to be distributed, quoted or cited without prior permission from their original authors in each instance.” > > We are now aware that you have used your access to unpublished material on our review web site to attempt to influence editorial decisions by the Journal of Geophysical Research. This is clearly a substantial breach of the conditions of access on two counts. > > First you have not used the material solely for the purpose of reviewing the IPCC drafts, and second you have, without prior permission, cited unpublished material to the JGR editors in your attempt to influence them. Such actions are not appropriate. The IPCC process can not supercede or alter the scientific review of papers followed by individual scientific journals. > > These considerations and the explanations you have already received made it clear that it is inappropriate to cite a function as a reviewer in the IPCC process as entitling you to access to additional information from authors of the unpublished papers available at our web site, which you have also done. > > Dr. Manning has already answered your other repeated question regarding two missing references: that, and any other views you may have, can be pointed out in your review comments, to be submitted via the formal process. > > Finally, we must insist that from now on you honor all conditions of access to unpublished, and therefore confidential, material made available for the IPCC review process. The IPCC rules for reviewing draft reports have served the scientific and policy communities well for numerous past international assessment rounds. If there is further evidence that you can not accept them, or if your intent is to use your access to the review process to challenge them, then we will not be able to continue to treat you as an expert reviewer for the IPCC. > > Sincerely, > Susan Solomon Translation: “Follow the rules, dickhead.” ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/177 "2009-10-29T23:30:21Z")
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention … Susan Solomon didn’t get her Nobel the old-fashioned way, by doing science. In fact, it is not a Nobel Prize for science at all, it had nothing to do with doing science. She is a climate scientist, that much is true. But she (along with a number of people who, according to the IPCC, have absolutely no science experience at all) got it for being a member a bureaucracy which does no science, but only summarizes science. So her prize is not for her knowledge of climate science. I suppose that is impressive to you. To me … not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/178 "2009-10-29T23:32:54Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention … Susan Solomon didn’t get her Nobel the old-fashioned way, by doing science. In fact, it is not a Nobel Prize for science at all, it had nothing to do with doing science. She is a climate scientist, that much is true. But she (along with a number of people who, according to the IPCC, have absolutely no science experience at all) got it for being a member a bureaucracy which does no science, but only summarizes science. So her prize is not for her knowledge of climate science. > > I suppose that is impressive to you. To me … not so much. It never ceases to amuse when people try to minimize the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/179 "2009-10-29T23:35:25Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Hmmmm…on one side we have the IPCC report, a carefully vetted, multi-year effort which takes a look at all the data available. > > On the other side, we have crackpots and people who don’t understand the term “statistical trend”. > > Decisions, decisions. Who shall I believe? It must dawn on you by now that our intrepid denier does not know when an argument from authority is a fallacy. He also just demonstrated that it was reporters in popular media that failed history forever, I already posted on the stupidity of making the point that climate researchers were all predicting an ice age in the 70’s, Popular media was and is a different thing. As for his comment that he said that it was warming and cooling, it is just the old argument of tails I win, heads you lose. A Useless argument as he is. It is by taking other factors into account that scientists can be confident that even with the apparent no change in the last 10 years that the earth is still warming. > **[What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?](https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm)** > > \1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.\ > **[What has global warming done since 1998?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)** > > \The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due... ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881/180 "2009-10-29T23:38:49Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Your hypocrisy is amusing, Richard “More Money, Please, Exxon-Mobil!” Lindzen-lover. > > Also, your interpretations of Dr. Solomon’s responses are…silly. No reason to be transparent? > > Translation: “Follow the rules, dickhead.” Read the whole story. Do some independent research on your own. All you’ve said so far is “Susan is right because Susan says she’s right.” I see you are easily impressed. Susan made up her own rules and didn’t follow the IPCC rules, dickhead. But like I said, it’s up to you who you believe, it’s meaningless to me. Me, I don’t believe anyone based on whether they received 1/4000 of a Peace prize, or based on whether they are funded by Exxon (who doesn’t believe in AGW) or the NSF (who do believe in NSF). What do those things have to do with whether what the person says is true or not? Absolutely nothing, that’s what. I don’t give a shit who wrote a study. I care what the study says, whether the science is sound, whether the study is replicable, whether the data is archived, whether the math is correct, whether the logic works, whether the information is solid. It’s the old-fashioned way, deciding things on the basis of the science involved, not on the basis of who wrote the study or who funded it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-weep-for-americans-global-warming-poll/514881.md?page=10)