Re: [asa] Climate change journals

From: Christine Smith <>
Date: Wed Dec 16 2009 - 01:00:22 EST

Hi Murray,

In retrospect, perhaps "denigrate" was too strong a word on my apologies. Nevertheless, the tone of your comment comes across as rather mocking (whether intended or not), and that Glenn responded in kind is not surprising (though not ideal).

More broadly, I wish that all parties would refrain from these little one or two liners that don't serve any constructive purpose. To that end, I will make no additional comments as to who-said-what and direct everyone's attention back to the original purpose of my post, which was to try and figure out a strategy for digging into the scientific literature on this topic, so that I can "engage the data" more intelligently in the future.

In Christ,

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at

--- On Tue, 12/15/09, Murray Hogg <> wrote:

> From: Murray Hogg <>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Climate change journals
> To: "ASA" <>
> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 10:22 PM
> Christine Smith wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In Glen's latest post, he asked me twice what I
> thought of comments written by others in response to his
> skepticism of the instrumental temperature data. Frankly,
> I'm rather disappointed by my fellow AGW proponents on this
> list. First they have demanded that the data be engaged, and
> then they denigrate someone who is very respectfully and
> intelligently asking questions about specific data points. I
> can only believe that they have become so frustrated by the
> debate (because I know they've had it before) that these
> rather flippant and disrespectful responses are them just
> letting off some steam.
> >
> > In any case, I feel compelled to try and dig more
> deeply into the data myself. Although I've been
> well-schooled in the fundamental concepts here, this would
> be my first foray into the scientifically reviewed journals.
> I would like to get a short list of the most important
> journals to look at, so that I can figure out how much all
> of this would cost me in subscription fees. Letting me know
> of any other sources of that rigor which I should review
> would also be helpful.
> >
> > Please note that this does not in anyway change my
> view that AGW is a significant problem. I am simply trying
> to become better educated on the issue so that I can "engage
> the data" myself more intelligently in the future. ::sigh::
> I am not looking forward to cracking open my stats. textbook
> again though. :(
> > In Christ,
> > Christine 
> Er, so Glenn can write this about me;
> "This is certainly not a scientific attitude--it is an
> attitude of a politician who doesn't really care about
> truth."
> And this despite the fact that I actually took the trouble
> to look up Glenn's cited blog post, locate the pertinent
> article, read it, and ask Glenn a couple of polite questions
> of clarification?
> And I'm denigrating Glenn?
> Where's that "unsubscribe" button...
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 16 01:00:33 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 16 2009 - 01:00:34 EST