Re: [asa] Climate Progress

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Dec 13 2009 - 20:00:20 EST

Well, John, if you're not even prepared to read it there is nothing more to
say, except sadly I have found yet another person on the list with whom
there is no point trying to reason.

Goodbye,
Iain

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:41 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> No I have not seen Mann's response but from the other attempted "nothing to
> see here" responses I have seen, those appear to be a much more appropriate
> use of the label "denialist" than those that doubt the science. Even if it
> is true and there is nothing to see, the public is rapidly losing confidence
> and faith in AGW science and scientists and this is reflected in the polls.
> I think they are dreaming if they think they can plow full steam ahead with
> the "science is settled" mantra. They are on a crash course with political
> reality coming very soon. Cap and Trade is now dead in its tracks and the
> EPA coup will be litigated for years and likely overturned with vengeance
> along with all its proponents even if it does get pulled off.
>
> Personally, I still feel that the emails speak for themselves. Even if
> there is an innocent explanation for "trick" and "hiding the decline", etc,
> the code is still proof positive that the data was "fudged". I know there
> may be attempted explanations for that as well but I can't buy it. Plus we
> have the debunking of the Hockey Stick Graph and the IPCC dropping it after
> previously adopting it as a logo, so at some point we have to just face
> facts and admit a pattern of either a.) deception or b.) bad science or c.)
> both.
>
> As far as the morality of the emails being stolen, again we are back to the
> Wedge Document. There was no outrage and the threat of felonious activity
> when list members partook of that, so I see that as selective sanctimony and
> not binding on me. However it got out, I now have the responsibility and
> duty to judge it reasonably and rationally and those involved have the
> responsibility to answer it reasonably and rationally. Their continued
> attempt to play the victim card to not have to come clean on it is only
> giving them another decline to hide in the minds of rational thnking people.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
> *To:* John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>; asa <
> asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Sun, December 13, 2009 8:12:21 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Climate Progress
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:11 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> I think the gratuitous and continued use of the label "denialist" for
>> those that don't affirm your conclusions reveals an arrogance and immaturity
>> in the AGW dogma. This is consistent with the childish antics of the AGW
>> kids disrupting Monckton's press conference in Copenhagen and liberal
>> politics in general.
>>
>> Since you guy's are fans of employing the 1% doctrine when it suits you,
>> you should be aware that 140 qualified climate scientists which is 2% of the
>> UN's 6000 deny your conclusions at
>> http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/.
>>
>> Further to continuously harp on the emails as being "stolen" shows
>> definance and that the only remorse is that they got caught is truly
>> stunning. Even their supporters point out that this was a breach of science
>> standards at best. And even ACORN had more moral integrity than this.
>>
>>
> John,
>
> I'm wondering if you actually read the Michael Mann article about the
> emails. His commentary on them revealed what I had suspected all along;
> that the emails were cherry-picked and their contents were taken out of the
> context of the discussion to look bad. I have had bitter experience of this
> beind done to my own emails, not only on this list but outside. On one
> instance, a friend I was trying to help over a difficulty angrily quoted the
> first half of a paragraph I'd written back at me. He totally ignored the
> second half of the paragraph, which entirely reversed the meaning of an
> out-of-context quote of the first.
>
> This happens all the time, and I'm not at all surprised that it happened
> with the CRU emails; I thought Michael Mann's defence was excellent and not
> at all arrogant. However, I'm afraid I can't say the same for what you just
> wrote above, which does indeed seem arrogant to me. Sorry, but that's just
> the way it comes across. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way.
>
> As to "harping on the emails being stolen": you yourself have always
> maintained there is a theological aspect to all this. What about the fact
> that the Eighth Commandment was broken in the process, and that Jesus said
> something about a bad tree cannot bear forth good fruit?
>
> Iain
>
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 13 20:00:50 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 13 2009 - 20:00:50 EST