On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:16:34 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:07:14 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/
archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx

December 3, 2009, 16:43:00 | NP Editor Discussion of the hacked
emails from East Anglia University reinforce one thing: The IPCC
process needs to be fixed

Yes. Let's get the fossil fuel industry to run it. They are much
better in assessing climate change and doing scientific data
management than a bunch of scientists.

Rob

They're not scientist. A scientist has no bias and searches for the
truth. A scientist doesn't argue fallacies like "consensus", "peer
review"; a scientist doesn't doctor the data; a scientist doesn't make
irrelevant argumentum ad hominems (like you just did...).

If that was ad hominem, then how do you call the whole ClimateGate
smearing campain ?


The name for the University of East Anglia is "frauds".

Now THAT is ad hominem.

The full name of the fallacy is "irrelevant argumentum ad hominem".

IF the subject is the bad behavior of the man, then speaking against the
man's bad behavior isn't an irrelevant argumentum ad hominem; that is, it
is not a fallacy.

If I say "They are biased, therefore they are not scientist, by
definition. They created false data with the intent to deceive, ergo they
are frauds" that is not an "ad hominem" fallacy, that is a logical
conclusion to a sound and valid argument.

Glad to teach you some logic 101.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:16:34 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:07:14 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/
archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx

December 3, 2009, 16:43:00 | NP Editor Discussion of the hacked
emails from East Anglia University reinforce one thing: The IPCC
process needs to be fixed

Yes. Let's get the fossil fuel industry to run it. They are much
better in assessing climate change and doing scientific data
management than a bunch of scientists.

Rob

They're not scientist. A scientist has no bias and searches for the
truth. A scientist doesn't argue fallacies like "consensus", "peer
review"; a scientist doesn't doctor the data; a scientist doesn't make
irrelevant argumentum ad hominems (like you just did...).

If that was ad hominem, then how do you call the whole ClimateGate
smearing campain ?


The name for the University of East Anglia is "frauds".

Now THAT is ad hominem.

The full name of the fallacy is "irrelevant argumentum ad hominem".

Thank you for the correction. I'll take your word for it.


IF the subject is the bad behavior of the man, then speaking against the
man's bad behavior isn't an irrelevant argumentum ad hominem; that is, it
is not a fallacy.

If I say "They are biased, therefore they are not scientist, by
definition. They created false data with the intent to deceive, ergo they
are frauds" that is not an "ad hominem" fallacy, that is a logical
conclusion to a sound and valid argument.

That is all correct IF and ONLY IF you can actually prove that the
University of East Anglia indeed "created false data with the intent to
deceive". However, since you, nor anyone else provided any such proof, you
calling them "fraud" is an insult and a very clear case of Ad Hominum
attack.


Glad to teach you some logic 101.

Glad to teach you some reason.
How about that proof (of creating false data with the intent to deceive) ?

Rob

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:44:37 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:


That is all correct IF and ONLY IF you can actually prove that the
University of East Anglia indeed "created false data with the intent to
deceive". However, since you, nor anyone else provided any such proof,
you calling them "fraud" is an insult and a very clear case of Ad
Hominum attack.

Pretending that the e-mails didn't prove a conspiracy to delete the data,
or a conspiracy to rig the data in similar ways, or a conspiracy to
pervert "peer review" to keep papers out of the journals from debunking
their lies only shows that:
1) You are either delusional or a bald faced liar.
2) Either delusional or liar, no one can take you seriously.

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:12:41 -0600, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:44:37 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
That is all correct IF and ONLY IF you can actually prove that the
University of East Anglia indeed "created false data with the intent to
deceive". However, since you, nor anyone else provided any such proof,
you calling them "fraud" is an insult and a very clear case of Ad
Hominum attack.

Pretending that the e-mails didn't prove a conspiracy to delete the data,
or a conspiracy to rig the data in similar ways, or a conspiracy to
pervert "peer review" to keep papers out of the journals from debunking
their lies only shows that:
1) You are either delusional or a bald faced liar.
2) Either delusional or liar, no one can take you seriously.

While the morals seemed low as the gutter,
the thing now appearing is a lack of management,
inept in even writing a simple program specification.

With all the money the beggars got from all
over the world they should have been able to process
the data with 30 or 40 people with calculators.

That would have made the data rock solid,
as it is, confidence is zero.