More scientists stating the obvious

[pjclarke]

At least he wasn't a target of an investigation.

Climategate, need we say more?

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endange...ths-facts.html

[DodgyAgent]

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Climate Change | US EPA

It also says this yet omits to mention that the climate always has changed and always will. The EPA is "spinning" facts and taking them out of context Climate change is real and it is happening now.

Your fanatical obsession to control and defend every facet of the argument about climate change reveals that you have an agenda that is nothing to do with the so called "problem" If it was then you would concede many of the contradictions to the argument. You do not which tells us more about you than it does about the "problem"

[pjclarke]

. (Usual paranoid blether and personal attack

The EPA, along with a handful of other enquiries found zero evidence of anything in the illegally obtained mails to bring the scientific work into doubt. Unlike the others it is subject to judicial review, so anyone who thinks differently can challenge the review. Nobody has.

I will concede, indeed welcome with open arms any compelling critique that means we do not face a potential crisis. I am afraid though that the musings of an unemployed software engineer who asserts that 'every gas molecule with more than two atoms is a greenhouse gas' doesn't quite make the cut.

What does the willingness to embrace a 9 month old nonsense essay on LinkedIn tell us about your approach to the problem I wonder?

[BlasterBates]

Well, I think perhaps you should, unless 'no smoke without fire' nod nod wink wink is the full extent of your argument?

Happy to oblige and I'm pleased you asked as I think this can't be discussed enough:

IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit

Deliberate misleading in all it's glory.

Fraud it may not be, but sloppy it certainly is, and worthy of an investigation.

[pjclarke]

Happy to oblige and I'm pleased you asked as I think this can't be discussed enough:

IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit

Deliberate misleading in all it's glory.

Fraud it may not be, but sloppy it certainly is, and worthy of an investigation.

That blog post from Steve McIntyre, master of the mountain from a molehill, contains no evidence of deliberate misleading.

So, six years ago the internal mail archive of the CRU was illegally plundered, published and subjected to endless hostile scrutiny, and as a consequence you want to discuss a dubious blog analysis of emails discussing a fairly arcane graph back in 1999 for a report that has long since been superseded. Seems a pretty small crumb, but let's give it a go. McIntrye artfully weaves together a few quotes to give the appearance of scientists conspiring to present a certain impression. But what's this?

even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation.

Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.

Looks like even the little crumb just melted.

Full details of McIntyre's chicanery: McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate

See also : Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine – Deltoid

[BlasterBates]

That blog post from Steve McIntyre, master of the mountain from a molehill, contains no evidence of deliberate misleading.

So, six years ago the internal mail archive of the CRU was illegally plundered, published and subjected to endless hostile scrutiny, and as a consequence you want to discuss a dubious blog analysis of emails discussing a fairly arcane graph back in 1999 for a report that has long since been superseded. Seems a pretty small crumb, but let's give it a go. McIntrye artfully weaves together a few quotes to give the appearance of scientists conspiring to present a certain impression. But what's this?



Looks like even the little crumb just melted.

Full details of McIntyre's chicanery: McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate

See also : Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine – Deltoid

are you sure ?

IPCC TAR and the hockey stick | Climate Etc.

The IPCC process is clearly broken, and I don’t see anything in their recent policies that addresses the problems that Christy raises. The policy makers clearly wrought havoc in context of the AR5 WG3 report; however there is a more insidious problem particularly with the WG1 scientists in terms of conflict of interest and the IPCC Bureau in terms of stacking the deck to produce the results that they want.

Who is "Deep Climate" ?

Is he a scientist ?

For private and professional reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous to the general public, at least for now.

hmm

Has he published anything ?

[pjclarke]

are you sure ?

IPCC TAR and the hockey stick | Climate Etc.



Who is "Deep Climate" ?

Is he a scientist ?

hmm

Has he published anything ?

More ad hom. To address his arguments - do you deny that McIntrye rearranged and edited quotes to misrepresent the contents of the stolen mail? You don't need a doctorate to spot that, (although I see Dr Curry posts Christy's unsceptical reproduction of the 'argument' uncritically). DC's identity is not hard to discover but I'm going to respect his anonymity. He's just a blogger, far as I know, but he did point out, in another blog post, that McIntyre's claim to reproduce the HS by inputting red noise - a common denier meme - was based on some bizarre and unscientific cherry picking.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman style | Deep Climate

[EternalOptimist]

Make yourself useful pj. go and plant a tree or something

[DodgyAgent]

The EPA, along with a handful of other enquiries found zero evidence of anything in the illegally obtained mails to bring the scientific work into doubt. Unlike the others it is subject to judicial review, so anyone who thinks differently can challenge the review. Nobody has.

I will concede, indeed welcome with open arms any compelling critique that means we do not face a potential crisis. I am afraid though that the musings of an unemployed software engineer who asserts that 'every gas molecule with more than two atoms is a greenhouse gas' doesn't quite make the cut.

What does the willingness to embrace a 9 month old nonsense essay on LinkedIn tell us about your approach to the problem I wonder?

All well and good so presumably you can explain therefore quite easily why he is wrong instead of smearing him personally. Or do you prefer your ad hominen technique that you so criticise everyone else for using?

[BlasterBates]

http://http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html

Look forward to some dry weather predicted by the climate scientists.