On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:58:35 -0800, Michael Price wrote:

On Dec 4, 1:07Â*pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in
...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/
archive/2009/12/...

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

Pretty much anyone would be better than the scientists at East
Anglia. Nice ad hom though implying that anyone who suggests anything
wrong must be a supporter of the fossil feul industry.

Yes. Even IF they were supporters of the fossil fuel industry, it would
be an ad hominem.

Their argument must be attacked on a logical basis.

Then once you proved it wrong, you can then make the argument that they
knew it was wrong and they are advocating it because they are supporters
of the fossil fuel industry.

It would be like I pointed out that global warming is bull****, because
the governments that control the IPCC would benefit by trillions in
American wealth. No, first you prove that global warming is complete and
utter fabricated bull****. Then you show that no real scientist would
advocate something so utterly and obviously WRONG (like by "hiding the
decline" and perverting peer review into something that it isn't) and
that they are frauds. Then why are they frauds? Massive funding could be
the reason.

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:58:35 -0800, Michael Price wrote:

On Dec 4, 1:07 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in
...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/
archive/2009/12/...

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

Pretty much anyone would be better than the scientists at East
Anglia. Nice ad hom though implying that anyone who suggests anything
wrong must be a supporter of the fossil feul industry.

Yes. Even IF they were supporters of the fossil fuel industry, it would
be an ad hominem.

Their argument must be attacked on a logical basis.

Then once you proved it wrong, you can then make the argument that they
knew it was wrong and they are advocating it because they are supporters
of the fossil fuel industry.

Interesting.
Note that I never mentioned anything about "supporters of the fossil fuel
industry".
You guys did that all by yourself.


It would be like I pointed out that global warming is bull****, because
the governments that control the IPCC would benefit by trillions in
American wealth. No, first you prove that global warming is complete and
utter fabricated bull****. Then you show that no real scientist would
advocate something so utterly and obviously WRONG (like by "hiding the
decline" and perverting peer review into something that it isn't) and
that they are frauds. Then why are they frauds? Massive funding could be
the reason.

Sigh. Let's start at the beginning :

What exactly did do you think he meant when he wrote "hide the decline" ?
Which decline was he trying to "hide" ?
And how do you know that ?

Rob

On Dec 5, 7:26*pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in messagenews:58KdnThffKTpS4TWnZ2dnUVZ_qli4p2d@gigan ews.com...

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:58:35 -0800, Michael Price wrote:

On Dec 4, 1:07 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in
...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/
archive/2009/12/...

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

* Pretty much anyone would be better than the scientists at East
Anglia. *Nice ad hom though implying that anyone who suggests anything
wrong must be a supporter of the fossil feul industry.

Yes. Even IF they were supporters of the fossil fuel industry, it would
be an ad hominem.

Their argument must be attacked on a logical basis.

Then once you proved it wrong, you can then make the argument that they
knew it was wrong and they are advocating it because they are supporters
of the fossil fuel industry.

Interesting.
Note that I never mentioned anything about "supporters of the fossil fuel
industry".

"Let's get the fossil fuel industry to run it. ". Sorry liar but you
did imply that
sceptics that all climate skeptics were run by the fossil feul
industry.

You guys did that all by yourself.

It would be like I pointed out that global warming is bull****, because
the governments that control the IPCC would benefit by trillions in
American wealth. No, first you prove that global warming is complete and
utter fabricated bull****. Then you show that no real scientist would
advocate something so utterly and obviously WRONG (like by "hiding the
decline" and perverting peer review into something that it isn't) and
that they are frauds. Then why are they frauds? Massive funding could be
the reason.

Sigh. Let's start at the beginning :

What exactly did do you think he meant when he wrote "hide the decline" ?

What he said.

Which decline was he trying to "hide" ?

The termperature decline, as you know.


And how do you know that ?

Because he said so.

Rob

"Michael Price" wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 7:26 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in
messagenews:58KdnThffKTpS4TWnZ2dnUVZ_qli4p2d@gigan ews.com...

On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:58:35 -0800, Michael Price wrote:

On Dec 4, 1:07 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in
...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/
archive/2009/12/...

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

Pretty much anyone would be better than the scientists at East
Anglia. Nice ad hom though implying that anyone who suggests anything
wrong must be a supporter of the fossil feul industry.

Yes. Even IF they were supporters of the fossil fuel industry, it
would
be an ad hominem.

Their argument must be attacked on a logical basis.

Then once you proved it wrong, you can then make the argument that
they
knew it was wrong and they are advocating it because they are
supporters
of the fossil fuel industry.

Interesting.
Note that I never mentioned anything about "supporters of the fossil
fuel
industry".

"Let's get the fossil fuel industry to run it. ". Sorry liar but you
did imply that
sceptics that all climate skeptics were run by the fossil feul
industry.

Note that I never mentioned "that all climate skeptics were run by the
fossil fuel industry".
You did that all by yourself.


You guys did that all by yourself.

It would be like I pointed out that global warming is bull****,
because
the governments that control the IPCC would benefit by trillions in
American wealth. No, first you prove that global warming is complete
and
utter fabricated bull****. Then you show that no real scientist would
advocate something so utterly and obviously WRONG (like by "hiding the
decline" and perverting peer review into something that it isn't) and
that they are frauds. Then why are they frauds? Massive funding could
be
the reason.

Sigh. Let's start at the beginning :

What exactly did do you think he meant when he wrote "hide the decline"
?

What he said.

"hide the decline". OK. What does that mean ? Decline of intelligence ?


Which decline was he trying to "hide" ?

The termperature decline, as you know.

OK. Which temperature decline ? The decline in temperature over the past 10
years that you guys are claiming ?

Go ahead, be specific as to what you think he meant.
Only when you are specific is when your claim (of fraud) can be proven or
disproven.

Otherwise, stfu, and let our scientists do their work.



And how do you know that ?

Because he said so.


Rob

On Dec 6, 4:56*pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Michael Price" wrote in message

...
On Dec 5, 7:26 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in
messagenews:58KdnThffKTpS4TWnZ2dnUVZ_qli4p2d@gigan ews.com...
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:58:35 -0800, Michael Price wrote:

On Dec 4, 1:07 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Eric Gisin" wrote in
...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/
archive/2009/12/...

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

Pretty much anyone would be better than the scientists at East
Anglia. Nice ad hom though implying that anyone who suggests anything
wrong must be a supporter of the fossil feul industry.

Yes. Even IF they were supporters of the fossil fuel industry, it
would
be an ad hominem.

Their argument must be attacked on a logical basis.

Then once you proved it wrong, you can then make the argument that
they
knew it was wrong and they are advocating it because they are
supporters
of the fossil fuel industry.

Interesting.
Note that I never mentioned anything about "supporters of the fossil
fuel
industry".

"Let's get the fossil fuel industry to run it. ". *Sorry liar but you
did imply that sceptics that all climate skeptics were run by the fossil feul
industry.

Note that I never mentioned "that all climate skeptics were run by the
fossil fuel industry".
You did that all by yourself.

And neither did I liar. You implied exactly what I said you
implied.

You guys did that all by yourself.

It would be like I pointed out that global warming is bull****,
because
the governments that control the IPCC would benefit by trillions in
American wealth. No, first you prove that global warming is complete
and
utter fabricated bull****. Then you show that no real scientist would
advocate something so utterly and obviously WRONG (like by "hiding the
decline" and perverting peer review into something that it isn't) and
that they are frauds. Then why are they frauds? Massive funding could
be
the reason.

Sigh. Let's start at the beginning :

What exactly did do you think he meant when he wrote "hide the decline"
?

* What he said.

"hide the decline". OK. What does that mean ? Decline of intelligence ?

Decline in temperature, stop pretending you don't know this.

Which decline was he trying to "hide" ?

* The termperature decline, as you know.

OK. Which temperature decline ? The decline in temperature over the past 10
years that you guys are claiming ?

The decline refered to in that specific email, which I don't have
right in front
of me. The point is he was hiding it.

Go ahead, be specific as to what you think he meant.
Only when you are specific is when your claim (of fraud) can be proven or
disproven.

He specifically said he was hiding something. How much more proof
do you want? Oh that's right, you don't care about proof do you? You
just want to hide your head in the sand.

Otherwise, stfu, and let our scientists do their work.

How is hiding the decline the work of scientists?

And how do you know that ?

* Because he said so.

Rob