Re: [asa] Climate Progress

From: John Walley <>
Date: Sun Dec 13 2009 - 20:30:35 EST

That's fine Iain. But this is the same ploy as "engaging the data" when someone else gets to decide what the data is. I have to submit to your criteria of objectivity to prove my "reasonableness" to you. I accept the fact that you give Mann an the others the benefit of the doubt and that you feel I need to hear him out and the others before I have heard enough. But I don't waste time trying to get you to read other articles that take the other side and prove my points. I could just as easily do that to you and then dismiss your unwillingness as your unreasonableness. So where do we draw the line? I will accept your decision to draw the line right here. But I contend this is just as much of a reflection on your unreasonableness as mine. John ________________________________ From: Iain Strachan <> To: John Walley <> Cc: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>; asa <> Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 8:00:20 PM Subject: Re: [asa] Climate Progress 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 <> 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 <> >To: John Walley <> >Cc: John Burgeson (ASA member) <>; asa <> >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 <> 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  >> >>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 with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 13 20:30:51 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 13 2009 - 20:30:51 EST