This is illogical, why has jshore not published his criticism? If it is so valid then surely he would want to get it published so you can use it to take down Douglas’s work.
People can make up their own minds.
No - Relevant. What is prestigious is subjective and thus a meaningless argument with science.
Try reading his website.
What?
You can clearly see there is no “data sources” link in 2008. Here is the post where they announce it.
Can you provide me with a survey or poll of any scientific organization’s membership body in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming? Surely you can find at least one!
Still not even a guess on why he could be wrong? Pathetic.
After seeing the reply by Dr. Santer I have confidence on what others will think.
That still leaves out the fact that guys like McIntyre are unable to convince many even in the organizations that publish his papers.
Maybe you do not know this, but Climate Audit has been found even in this forum to be an unreliable echo chamber.
I will leave that as your homework. Check where the papers of McIntyre were published, then look for the official Position on climate change that the scientific organization that controls the journal has.
Talk about digging more! Check the links that they posted, those organizations had the data up already for a while. Of course this is another example of not paying attention.
As much as you want to, the reality is that Phil Jones is only likely to get pie in his face, but not much will happen to him, and the science was not affected.
As for that reporter in the Times, you need to get to speed on what that hack is up to:
GIGObuster, I was in the middle of addressing your post point by point when it hit me that we would both be wasting our time. I don’t really disagree with you all that much, and you have an almost uncanny knack for misunderstanding me. Maybe it’s my fault, but you always seem to miss the point of what I’m saying. Hell, sometimes I look at a rebuttal from you and think “isn’t that just what I said?”
Some advice to you, for what it’s worth: don’t put words in other people’s mouths. It’s really annoying. This sort of thing for example: “And if there is an item that makes me trust your points even less is that it seems that you are accepting what the researchers on his list are saying.” I’d mentioned Patrick Moore as a rebuttal to the OP who seems to believe in a conspiracy of misanthropic environmentalists. I thought pointing out that a person on his own list was a founder member of one of the largest environmentalist groups in the world might make him think twice. And I mentioned Nir Shaviv “has a nice summary on his website of the problems as he sees them”, which he does. “As he sees them” is a qualifier, by the way. It means I don’t necessarily agree with him. You came back with cites attacking Nir Shaviv’s cosmic ray research, which I never mentioned, attacking the credibility of Lindzen, who I not only didn’t mention but who I think is plain wrong, and attacking the credibility of Ball, who I also never mentioned, probably because I’ve never heard of him. That’s not very fair of you, casting aspersions on the trustworthiness of my points (and by association, me) by attacking points I never made.
I know you’re passionate on this subject, but try not to patronise and belittle so much and you may well win over a few waverers.
I can see you have your hands full at the moment. Good luck.
So we have established you have no published criticism of Douglas.
Of course you do but so do I.
Why are you creating strawman arguments? Prove that McIntyre has not convinced many members of the NAS to his points about Mann’s papers. McIntyre makes no claims of any intent to change the position statements of any scientific organization’s position statement created by a handful of the organizations council members.
No it is hasn’t.
I will leave you to your own absurd strawman arguments.
Can you even follow a discussion? RealClimate did not have those links up!
His credibility in the science community is forever ruined.
Then of course you link to the cartoonist site [skepticalscience]…
“Can you provide me with a survey or poll of any scientific organization’s membership body in support of the organization’s position statement released by the handful of council members regarding global warming? Surely you can find at least one!”
I didn’t ask you for the position statements I want evidence of support from the membership body, you see all those were created by just the handful of council members of each organization.
When does one know when someone really has no point? When they assume that all others will ignore how incapable they were to reply to posted criticism. Yes it was math, but not math that could be impossible to understand by a person that claims to be up to speed on this.
That is like saying that “we climate audit followers are so inept can we not find those links unless RealClimate posts them”. As I researched the controversy, it is clear that on many occasions the scientists referred guys like McIntyre to those sources. And almost all already existed before 2008.
And? That does not change the science.
And not dealing with any of the science mentioned and linked does demonstrate your fortitude against evidence… Not.
You are not criticising me you are critising Dr. Douglas who has published his paper in the refereed literature. If the criticism had any validity then he would publish it, the fact that he does not shows it does not. Send the criticism to Dr. Douglas and I would be willing to hear his response. He is more than capable of defending his work, don’t be afraid.
No that is like saying that RealClimate only decided that data availability was important AFTER climategate. The information McIntyre requested in regards to various papers had nothing to do with what was available online. Your lies about this are pathetic.
Really? It makes anything based on CRU data questionable, it makes any chapters in the IPCC authored by the scientists involved questionable. It does more to discredit the so called science than you believe.
Am I supposed to get my science from a cartoonist? Is this where you go? To cartoon land?
It’s not hard, and no-one disputes it. What’s hard is for the alarmists to come up with any actual evidence that it has the major effect on climate and will have the disastrous effects they claim. That’s where the actual debate lies.
ETA: Actually, some cranks do dispute that, but no-one with any decent scientific credibility and reputation does.
Meh, you are just showing to all that indeed you have no clue on even why you are wrong on that item.
Besides not being kosher, saying that I’m lying is not a valid debating tactic. The link to real climate was produced to show that organizations have produced the data before, what is clear is that deniers have not been able to use it properly or they continue to convince their followers that they do not need to explain it properly because they already have an echo chamber that never wonders why they do not show any progress in convincing other scientists to come up and oppose the official positions of their organizations regarding AGW.
Besides demonstrating to others how illogical you are on this item, you are still only showing to others that even simple explanations linked to research are too hard for you to explain away.
Wrong about what? Where is your buddies published criticism? Does posting someone’s rant about a paper in a forum usually work with the uninformed?
I say you are lying when you do, it is called honesty.
Did the link go up right after climategate? Using the available data was never an issue. You do not even undersand the debate. What McIntyre was requesting was NOT available and has nothing to do with what is on the RealClimate link. Are you even aware of the papers the data, methods and sourcecode was requested for?
I don’t even understand the Yamal tangent. It is almost as if you never honestly looked at this and are desperately using Wikipedia and alarmist sites to hack together some form of desperate criticism. Your knee-jerk attacks on McIntyre are pathetic and ignorant of the issues - Very Revealing.
No I understand the Yamal debate I don’t understand your injection of it. You have been injecting tangents and strawman positions as soon as your old talking points get shot down.
There is no need to analyze much, McIntyre had the data (a big refutation of one of your main points) and still he continued to demand it and not use it properly.
I am aware of Merchants of Doubt. It is frequently brought up by AGW advocates to discredit contrary views. Also, from your side of the argument, all scientists who disagree with the IPCC and mainstream views on this subject are bought off by Big Oil and corporate interests.
By the way, you shouldn’t EVER equate skepticism of the IPCC with those denying a link between smoking and cancer. The science of climate change, the history of changing weather patterns, the myriad factors that influence changing global temperature, the task of separating natural cycles related to changes on the Sun (we are currently experiencing a significant solar minimum) from the effect that human activity has is one of the most complex scientific endeavors one could make. Not to mention the hubris necessary to think we can project long term warming trends decades into the future when weather men can barely predict the weather even a week into the future. Also, assuming climate change is indeed real, the task then becomes what steps would it take to really reduce world temperatures drastically over the next few decades, given that populations continue to increase in numbers, and poorer countries are looking to become industrialized and raise their standard of living. To really effect the temperatures significantly, it would require a significantly reduced population, and a dramatically reduced standard of living for people throughout the industrialized world.
Cap and Trade WILL NOT affect a significant change in world temperature over the next few decades. Look through these links:
“According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.”
www.ees.ufl.edu/homepp/zoltek/Junk%20Science.doc
So basically, IF this legislation is successful and run halfway competently, we can expect to see global temperature rise between 0.05ºC and 0.112ºC less than if we did nothing. There are many other resources out there that confirms these figures. This is IF we reduced carbon emissions 80% over 2005 levels! We are talking about a statistically insignificant difference.
Now, what we DO know for certain is that this is a huge tax, will reduce peoples standard of living, make certain corporations and vested interests vast fortunes, and give bureaucrats massive power to regulate every aspect of human behavior.
Why is it you can only see the ulterior motives of the “skeptics”? Even if some scientists are bought by Big Oil and have an agenda, it pales in comparison to the lucrative emerging carbon credit market. The prospects for making money are endless. What about the bankers who have financed this movement? What do you think their agenda is? If you actually took the time to read my initial post, you would see that it is the creation of a world bank. This has been documented so many times. You really need to open your eyes.