"Michael Price" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 3:16 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in
...



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 ?

If someone commits fraud and you point it out, that's not a smear.
Neither is it an
ad hom to point out that an authority lies.

In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So I am totally open to listen to your proof of fraud. Just give your
argument as to why there is no other explanation of the emails than to
conclude "fraud". Go ahead, I'm listening.



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

Now THAT is ad hominem.

No, because he's not arguing that because they're frauds what they
say cannot be true. He's
merely pointing out that their testimony is unreliable.


That's an opinion until they are proven frauds (which is built into your
statement).

This is the
biggest fraud since the Alchemist bilked money out of the European
royalty by getting their "lead into gold" research funded. "Everyone
knew" that alchemist could convert lead into gold, if they had the
proper
funding. They passed peer review of the other alchemist and
everything.

And that is just a frustrated person talking.

You have NO evidence of any fraud by CRU scientists

And now you're just lying.

Really ?

They were caught doctoring their
evidence

That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

and then
lying about losing the original data.

That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

or against the IPCC process. Nothing at all !
This whole ClimateGate nonsense is one big blown up air balloon.

I wonder who is inflating this rediculous mis-information campaign....
I'm sure it will all come out in time.

Rob

They've admitted the emails are accurate

I don't think you even have evidence of that, but even if you did, there is
no evidence of fraud unless it can be shown.
Showing fraud is when you point out an error in a scientific paper, and you
can show that this error could only be inserted by deliberate insertion or
temporing of the data. That's proving fraud.
Can you do that ?

so suck it liar.

Easy now... Where did I lie ?

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
"Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Michael Price" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 3:16 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in
...


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 ?

If someone commits fraud and you point it out, that's not a smear.
Neither is it an
ad hom to point out that an authority lies.
In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So I am totally open to listen to your proof of fraud. Just give your
argument as to why there is no other explanation of the emails than to
conclude "fraud". Go ahead, I'm listening.


The name for the University of East Anglia is "frauds".
Now THAT is ad hominem.

No, because he's not arguing that because they're frauds what they
say cannot be true. He's
merely pointing out that their testimony is unreliable.

That's an opinion until they are proven frauds (which is built into your
statement).

This is the
biggest fraud since the Alchemist bilked money out of the European
royalty by getting their "lead into gold" research funded. "Everyone
knew" that alchemist could convert lead into gold, if they had the
proper
funding. They passed peer review of the other alchemist and
everything.
And that is just a frustrated person talking.

You have NO evidence of any fraud by CRU scientists
And now you're just lying.
Really ?

Yes.

They were caught doctoring their
evidence
That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

Do I have to remember you for the Yamal data?

Mann skipped his graph at 1960, because it shows a declining temperature.
But instead of publishing it, they fudged it to show an incline.

How do you call this?

and then
lying about losing the original data.
That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

or against the IPCC process. Nothing at all !
This whole ClimateGate nonsense is one big blown up air balloon.

I wonder who is inflating this rediculous mis-information campaign....
I'm sure it will all come out in time.

Rob
They've admitted the emails are accurate
I don't think you even have evidence of that, but even if you did, there is
no evidence of fraud unless it can be shown.
Showing fraud is when you point out an error in a scientific paper, and you
can show that this error could only be inserted by deliberate insertion or
temporing of the data. That's proving fraud.
Can you do that ?

so suck it liar.
Easy now... Where did I lie ?

You seem to raise doubt on everything.
In your mind it seems the whole world is clowning around since weeks, while
you're the only keeper of truth, isn't it?
Open your eyes and see the reality outside your tea cup.


When is Herr Peter going to admit that his spamming is ineffective?

Q

--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
enexpress.de...
"Rob Dekker" wrote:


"Michael Price" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 3:16 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in
...



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 ?

If someone commits fraud and you point it out, that's not a smear.
Neither is it an
ad hom to point out that an authority lies.

In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So I am totally open to listen to your proof of fraud. Just give your
argument as to why there is no other explanation of the emails than to
conclude "fraud". Go ahead, I'm listening.



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

Now THAT is ad hominem.

No, because he's not arguing that because they're frauds what they
say cannot be true. He's
merely pointing out that their testimony is unreliable.


That's an opinion until they are proven frauds (which is built into your
statement).

This is the
biggest fraud since the Alchemist bilked money out of the European
royalty by getting their "lead into gold" research funded.
"Everyone
knew" that alchemist could convert lead into gold, if they had the
proper
funding. They passed peer review of the other alchemist and
everything.

And that is just a frustrated person talking.

You have NO evidence of any fraud by CRU scientists

And now you're just lying.

Really ?

Yes.

If I'm lying that that is easy to disprove. Just show the evidence.


They were caught doctoring their
evidence

That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

Do I have to remember you for the Yamal data?

Why don't you refresh my memory ?


Mann skipped his graph at 1960, because it shows a declining temperature.
But instead of publishing it, they fudged it to show an incline.


Mann "skipped his graph at 1960" ? What does that mean exactly ?
What did he do precisely with exactly which graph in exactly which paper ?

How do you call this?


So far, I call this a storm in a tea cup.
All I hear is handwaving and allegations and no evidence of any wrongdoing.
Show me something, like a URL link or ANYTHING that is not somebody's
opinion, but shows the clear facts of exactly what Mann did wrong.

and then
lying about losing the original data.

That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

or against the IPCC process. Nothing at all !
This whole ClimateGate nonsense is one big blown up air balloon.

I wonder who is inflating this rediculous mis-information
campaign....
I'm sure it will all come out in time.

Rob

They've admitted the emails are accurate

I don't think you even have evidence of that, but even if you did, there
is
no evidence of fraud unless it can be shown.
Showing fraud is when you point out an error in a scientific paper, and
you
can show that this error could only be inserted by deliberate insertion
or
temporing of the data. That's proving fraud.
Can you do that ?

so suck it liar.

Easy now... Where did I lie ?

You seem to raise doubt on everything.

Scientists are known to doubt everything until there is evidence.
It's also used in our court system. Collect physical evidence that rules out
every explanation, until there is only one possible outcome. So doubt every
statement or theory that is not sustained by evidence.

You should try it sometimes.

In your mind it seems the whole world is clowning around since weeks,
while
you're the only keeper of truth, isn't it?
Open your eyes and see the reality outside your tea cup.


Be precise in what you claim, show me the evidence, and I'll be on the
barricades with you.
Just remember that I use logic to reach conclusions, and I'm not impressed
by noise, smoke, mirrors and handwaving.

--
=======================
|| Save the planet? || (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw)
|| Not yet. ||
|| SAVE THE SCIENCE! || (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac)
=======================

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:07:48 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Michael Price" wrote in message

If someone commits fraud and you point it out, that's not a smear.
Neither is it an
ad hom to point out that an authority lies.

In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

No, they are either innocent or guilty in fact, but the government must
treat them as "innocent (but suspect)" until due process finds them
guilty.

That's a big difference.

Individuals are, of course, FREE to draw their own conclusions. We can't
punish the guilty for those conclusions, however. That is a power we've
given to the government.

The rest of your post was based on this false premise.

"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
enexpress.de...
"Rob Dekker" wrote:


"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
enexpress.de...
"Rob Dekker" wrote:


"Michael Price" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 3:16 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in
...



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 ?

If someone commits fraud and you point it out, that's not a smear.
Neither is it an
ad hom to point out that an authority lies.

In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So I am totally open to listen to your proof of fraud. Just give your
argument as to why there is no other explanation of the emails than to
conclude "fraud". Go ahead, I'm listening.



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

Now THAT is ad hominem.

No, because he's not arguing that because they're frauds what they
say cannot be true. He's
merely pointing out that their testimony is unreliable.


That's an opinion until they are proven frauds (which is built into
your
statement).

This is the
biggest fraud since the Alchemist bilked money out of the
European
royalty by getting their "lead into gold" research funded.
"Everyone
knew" that alchemist could convert lead into gold, if they had
the
proper
funding. They passed peer review of the other alchemist and
everything.

And that is just a frustrated person talking.

You have NO evidence of any fraud by CRU scientists

And now you're just lying.

Really ?

Yes.

If I'm lying that that is easy to disprove. Just show the evidence.


They were caught doctoring their
evidence

That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

Do I have to remember you for the Yamal data?

Why don't you refresh my memory ?


Mann skipped his graph at 1960, because it shows a declining
temperature.
But instead of publishing it, they fudged it to show an incline.


Mann "skipped his graph at 1960" ? What does that mean exactly ?
What did he do precisely with exactly which graph in exactly which paper
?

How do you call this?


So far, I call this a storm in a tea cup.
All I hear is handwaving and allegations and no evidence of any
wrongdoing.
Show me something, like a URL link or ANYTHING that is not somebody's
opinion, but shows the clear facts of exactly what Mann did wrong.

I could post you an URL to WUWT, who reconstructed the graph with exact
and
valid data and that SHOWS a HUGE decline, but this you would deny of
course.

Dude, where did I ever deny any scientific analysis ?
Just give me the link, and I will tell you what I think of it.
Then we can discuss that.


You are living your agenda and you'll defend it, just like LLiard LLoyd,
until
your terminal breath.
Your inability to accept facts, or even to give them a serious
consideration
is typical.

The last 4 weeks of fraud investigation was more successfully, than your
30
years of fudging and smother the data.

Keep on running against the wall, Rob. Keep it up.
You are an irrevocable reality denier.

Any discussion with you will be fruitless.

Because you have not a single thread of evidence behind your attacks on
scientists.
Nothing but smoke and mirrors.

You want a discussion ? Show me some science to make your point. Instead of
your own opinions.


EOD

--
WARNING: IPCC ARs are crammed with loads of deliberate misinformation
designed for the sole purpose of helping AGWs darwinate in spectacular
ways for the amusement of those more intelligent.

On Dec 5, 8:07*pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:
"Michael Price" wrote in message

...
On Dec 4, 3:16 pm, "Rob Dekker" wrote:



"Marvin the Martian" wrote in
...

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 ?

* If someone commits fraud and you point it out, that's not a smear.
Neither is it an ad hom to point out that an authority lies.

In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Nice try hypocrite, but that's a legal doctrine, not how we judge
people's
honesty.

So I am totally open to listen to your proof of fraud. Just give your
argument as to why there is no other explanation of the emails than to
conclude "fraud". Go ahead, I'm listening.

How exactly would you explain people talking about dodging FOI
requests
and talking about covering up data? How do you explain them arranging
for a science editor being fired for publishing ONE anti-AGW article
while
claiming that peer review proved that AGW is real?


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

Now THAT is ad hominem.

* No, because he's not arguing that because they're frauds what they
say cannot be true. *He's merely pointing out that their testimony is unreliable.

That's an opinion until they are proven frauds (which is built into your
statement).

Oh please, how do the emails NOT prove them frauds? In any case my
statement
that his statement was not an ad hom is still correct. Their
testimony is unreliable
that is still truth. Your claim that he made an ad hom is still a
lie.

This is the
biggest fraud since the Alchemist bilked money out of the European
royalty by getting their "lead into gold" research funded. "Everyone
knew" that alchemist could convert lead into gold, if they had the
proper
funding. They passed peer review of the other alchemist and
everything.

And that is just a frustrated person talking.

You have NO evidence of any fraud by CRU scientists

* And now you're just lying.

Really ?


Yes really.

They were caught doctoring their
evidence

That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

All over the emails, that's the point.

and then lying about losing the original data.

That is a serious allegation. Where is your proof ?

Grow up.

or against the IPCC process. Nothing at all !
This whole ClimateGate nonsense is one big blown up air balloon.

I wonder who is inflating this rediculous mis-information campaign.....
I'm sure it will all come out in time.

Rob

* They've admitted the emails are accurate

I don't think you even have evidence of that, but even if you did, there is
no evidence of fraud unless it can be shown.

Which it can, the emails are full of them telling each other to
cover things up.
They are full of details of "adjustments" made for which no note is
made in
the final study.

Showing fraud is when you point out an error in a scientific paper, and you
can show that this error could only be inserted by deliberate insertion or
temporing of the data. That's proving fraud.
Can you do that ?

so suck it liar.

Easy now... Where did I lie ?

You claimed that there was no evidence of fraud. That was a lie.
When
people talk about making adjustments to make the line fit and not
explain
why (or that) they did it, that's fraud. When you accept government
money
and dodge FOI requests then lie about losing the data that's fraud.