Scientists, as Del Ratzsch has pointed out, are people. And qua people, they sometimes have non scientific biases. These biases and motivations are crucial for they guide and restrict the science. Some answers are acceptable and other answers are not acceptable. It is that simple. There are those who are blackballed, and there are those who do the blackballing. It all depends on whether one is interested in truth or in dogma. You know who you are.
And what are these biases and motivations? It’s really quite simple. All you need to do is listen as this week’s new round of emails from climate-change scientists demonstrates yet again.
Once again we see deception, manipulation, misrepresentation and the like, but this time it is from climate researchers. Evolutionists are not the only ones who use and abuse science as a vehicle to advance and enforce their non scientific views.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Fearing lawsuits, the damage control is now in process ...
ReplyDeleteClimate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
Published Online November 24 2011
1College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331–5503, USA.
2Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, NJ 08544, USA.
3Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
4Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.
5Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
6Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA.
7ICREA and Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: aschmitt@coas.oregonstate.edu
Abstract
Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513
I'm shocked - shocked! - that Cornelius Hunter appears to be in denial about global warming.
ReplyDeleteOnce again we see deception, manipulation, misrepresentation and the like, but this time it is from climate researchers. Evolutionists are not the only ones who use and abuse science as a vehicle to advance and enforce their non scientific views.
Never mind that Cornelius fails to provide evidence for such bad behavior.
Here's some evidence that Cornelius himself is no stranger to deception. He used the same picture to represent two different species. One picture is a rotated and slightly modified version of the original.
Indeed, religion drives pseudo-science and it matters.
troy said...
ReplyDeleteHere's some evidence that Cornelius himself is no stranger to deception. He used the same picture to represent two different species. One picture is a rotated and slightly modified version of the original.
LOL! I remember when that bit of Cornelius' 'science' first was exposed. My coworkers and I in the lab laughed about it for a solid week.
Here is a recap of the whole embarrassing (for CH) incident BTW.
It takes a special kind of 'scientist' to reverse an image and present it as additional evidence. A Creation Scientist!
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteOnce again we see deception, manipulation, misrepresentation and the like, but this time it is from climate researchers.
I see nothing in the linked Guardian story that supports your claim.
Do you have any specific examples from the new document dump to support your claim, or are you bearing false witness?
I am sure Cornelius would never lie. He must have gotten the pictures of wolf and thylacine off the web and did not even notice that they were mirror images of each other. Happens all the time!
ReplyDeleteRight, Cornelius?
troy
ReplyDeleteSeeing you need help, here are some links:
Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!
Climate Depot's Exclusive Round Up of Climategate 2.0
Climategate II tools
Searchable versions of
Climategate 2 http://di2.nu/foia/foia.pl
Climategate 2 at http://foia2011.org
An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU by Willis Eschenbach
Climategate archive at WUWT.
Climategate emails at ClimateAudit.org
Bishop Hill see links since Nov. 19, 2011.
Uh oh, “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”
JoNova
http://joannenova.com.au/
More emails: Phil Jones paid £13.7 million in grants but “not a public servant”
Google lists 6.4 million hits for "climategate email
Including 1.4 million for:
climategate email deception
2.2 million for climategate email manipulation
and 22 million for climategate email misrepresentation
Let us know if you still need help to find "deception, manipulation, misrepresentation and the like . . ."
David L.,
ReplyDeleteIs your collection of links somehow a good replacement for a cogent argument? Why don't you take a specific email message, analyze it and demonstrate that climate scientists are liars? So far all you have is innuendo.
I just did a quick Google search and found 14,000,000 hits for priest rape, 544,000 for priest molest, 1,760,000 for priest molesters, 1,240,000 for priest sodomy, 36,000,000 for priest abuse, 64,900,000 for pope sex, 2,070,000 for pope butt sex, 71,500,000 for christian butt sex, 22,000,000 for catholic butt sex, 881,000 for catholic perverts, 3,740,000 for catholic child molesters, 8,080,000 for christian child molesters, and 67,200,000 for christian child abuse.
ReplyDeleteNeed I say more?
This is fun. Let's see if I can use Google to prove that, in fact, no manipulation occurred.
ReplyDeleteI got more than 3 million hits on climategate no email manipulation. Almost a million more than climategate email manipulation. Therefore there was no manipulation. QED
Here are a couple of illegal of contra science items for starters:
ReplyDelete1) Withholding & destroying information required to be submitted by FOIA law, in direct breach of its provisions. See: An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU by Willis Eschenbach
Climate hoax promoter Phil Jones: Did I say we *never* deleted any emails? I meant we *did* delete emails
2. Publishing temperature trends known to be bad, claiming them to be valid. See: Behind Closed Doors: “Perpetuating Rubbish”
Steve McIntyre observes: <
"The new emails show that Bradley thought that this series was, to use the technical term preferred by climate scientists, “crap” and should not be used in multiproxy studies – an issue raised by Bradley in connection with Mann et al (EOS 2003) – their attack on Soon and Baliunas 2003.
Needless to say, Bradley did not publish a comment criticizing the use of this series. It has subsequently been used over and over again in IPCC multiproxy studies, commencing with Mann and Jones 2003."
Ray Bradley wrote:
"You just shouldn’t grab anything that’s in print and just use it ‘cos it’s there—that just perpetuates rubbish. This series needs to be removed from Figure 2 in the EOS forum piece–and if you included it in your GRL paper, I suggest that you reconsider it.
Ray"
3) Biasing the scientific method, for the Cause, by stating as fact what is questioned in private. See: Private Expressions of Uncertainty
"One of the main themes of the emails is scientists admitting problems privately that they did not clearly admit in public."
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!
For another example:
ReplyDelete4) Corruption of professional journalism ethics See:
BBC In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists, prime minister “green guru” publicly doubts climate change.
Contrast "BBC's Editorial Values"
1.3.2 "The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter specifies that we should do all we can "to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality" in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy."
See also "BBC's principles:" Accuracy
3.2.3 The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences' trust in our content.
Isn't it funny that the anti-science Evolution deniers are almost always also AGW deniers and 9-11 Truthers?
ReplyDeleteThere's something about any science that contradicts their religious beliefs they just can't deal with honestly.
Thorton
ReplyDeleteSee: Carrick (Comment #86241)
"as so clearly explained by Dick Feymann in 1974 during his commencement address so appropriately labeled “cargo cult science”:
"It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards"
Applying it:
"There's something about scientific evidence relating to origins that contradicts atheist's beliefs they just can't deal with honestly."
Atheists cannot explain the origin of life, of information or of ethics.
and:
"There's something about scientific evidence relating to climate change that contradicts global warming alarmists' beliefs they just can't deal with honestly."
They cannot tolerate publication of evidence that shows climate change is primarily driven by natural causes.
David L.,
ReplyDeleteLet's deal with your claims one by one, starting with the first one:
1) Withholding & destroying information required to be submitted by FOIA law, in direct breach of its provisions.
I don't think the scientists deleted any emails after the FOIA request was sent. That would be illegal. If they deleted emails prior to the request (in the process of email exchanges) that seems to be within bounds of the law.
I am a scientist myself. I delete emails in my mailbox when they accumulate. Am I breaching the law?
LOL! Yep, another Creationist / AGW denier / 9-11 Truther. Bet you're still ranting about the President's birth certificate too, right?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, back in the real world
Global warming confirmed by Berkeley independent study
Let me guess - that's part of the Evil Scientist Conspiracy too.
As far as I know, the scientists involved in "climategate" were cleared of any wrongdoing, multiple times, by official investigations (see here and links therein).
ReplyDeleteMoreover, a recent independent study (partially funded by the brothers whose name ends in "och") has confirmed the original findings.
What exactly do the newly released emails add to what we didn't already know?
troy said...
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly do the newly released emails add to what we didn't already know?
Absolutely nil, zilch, zero, diddly-squat.
The whole thing is just another cheap political propaganda ploy by the AGW deniers timed to coincide with the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference.
It's business as usual for the AGW-denier liars and hucksters.
troy:
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked - shocked! - that Cornelius Hunter appears to be in denial about global warming.
Did I deny gw?
Here's some evidence that Cornelius himself is no stranger to deception.
Professor, do you deny convergence in biology?
Further on the conspiracy to corrupt peer review:
ReplyDeleteTribalistic corruption of peer review - the Chris de Freitas incident
Climategate 2 – Salinger puts the boot into De Freitas
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review – Part II
David L.,
ReplyDeleteCare to respond to my point? Or are we done disoursin'?
oleg:
ReplyDeleteI am sure Cornelius would never lie. He must have gotten the pictures of wolf and thylacine off the web and did not even notice that they were mirror images of each other. Happens all the time! Right, Cornelius?
Yes professor, if you search through hundreds of my slides you will find a mistake here or there on otherwise utterly uncontroversial claims (uncontroversial in science at least). Then you can zoom in 500X on the mistake and claim deception, even though you know full well I have already agreed to the mistake. Then you can cover your ears and claim there really is no substantial convergence.
This is the way evolutionists deal with science. They misrepresent science and when it is pointed out they give push back and continue to misrepresent the science. But when you acknowledge a mistake on evidence which, your mistake notwithstanding, is contradictory, they use the mistake to deny the evidence and claim deception.
Acknowledging a mistake does not amount to a reasonable explanation of it, Cornelius. That one looked pretty bad, no matter how you slice it.
ReplyDeleteoleg:
ReplyDeleteAcknowledging a mistake does not amount to a reasonable explanation of it, Cornelius. That one looked pretty bad, no matter how you slice it.
Good to see you have such a discerning eye...
So, you wanna tell us the real story how you managed to pick up two nearly identical pictures to illustrate two different animals? Go ahead.
ReplyDeleteoleg:
ReplyDeleteSo, you wanna tell us the real story how you managed to pick up two nearly identical pictures to illustrate two different animals?
Sure, I was creating a couple hundred slides for upcoming talks and wanted some more graphics on some of the slides. I used various web pages and on that slide didn't pay enough attention to what was going where. I probably didn't think twice about it since the point is so uncontroversial to begin with. The slides were never meant for publication, they're just visuals as I make my points. Somebody pointed it out and I acknowledged the mistake, but of course the point of the slide, that convergence is ubiquitous, still stands. And so evolutionists zoom in 500X on the speck while ignoring the log in their own eye as they constantly misrepresent science.
That's a bit vague, Cornelius. Let me help you a little bit so we can get to the bottom of it together.
ReplyDeleteHere are your slides archived by Wes Elseberry.
Scroll down to Marsupials vs. Placentals. That slide contains the two mirror images we are discussing. It also lists a couple of links to pages from which the slides were presumably taken. The first one, a coloring book is the source of the first four drawings.
The last four drawings, including the thylacines and the "wolves" come from Berkeley's integrative biology website. The site has been updated, so the old link won't work. Fortunately, it has been preserved at archive.org, so we can access it. Link.
On that page, we find one mention of the Tasmanian wolf:
FAMILY THYLACINIDAE
5. Tasmanian wolf (Thylacinus cynocephalus) Thylacinus drawing
Canid-like marsupial
EXTINCT
Clicking on that last link takes us to a gorgeous color drawing of two thylacines. That is the image labeled "Tasmanian wolf" in your talk.
There is no mention of any other wolves on that page. So, where did the mirror image, labeled "Wolf" in your slides, come from?
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteDid I deny gw?
Not directly, no. Did I jump to a false conclusion? If so, my apologies.
Professor, do you deny convergence in biology?
No, professor, I don't.
There are a couple of things in your story, Cornelius, that do not make sense.
ReplyDeleteCH: Sure, I was creating a couple hundred slides for upcoming talks and wanted some more graphics on some of the slides. I used various web pages and on that slide didn't pay enough attention to what was going where.
That could work if the pictures you found on the web were of the same poor quality as the images in your slide. However, that isn't so. The Berkeley web page that is referenced in your slide has a high-resolution color drawing of thylacines that simply cannot be mistaken for wolves.
CH: The slides were never meant for publication, they're just visuals as I make my points.
That is doubtful. Your figures were published in the Proceedings of the IDEA 2002 in San Francisco. The proceedings, with your article "One long argument" on p. 89 and the slide in question on p. 93, have this copyright notice:
Copyright 2002 University of San Francisco and the IDEA Center. The articles contained in these Proceedings are copyright protected individually by the author. Articles may be reproduced in its [sic] entirety for non-commercial use unless otherwise specified by the author.
oleg, why were Haeckel's Embryos put into children's text books to purposely deceive generations of children about the evidence for evolution???
ReplyDeleteHaeckel embryos were the 19th century version of Mann's global warming hockey stick.
Stephen Gould wrote: “But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!”
This is not just an isolated incident but nearly everything that evolutionists say has been spinned to conform to their agenda.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is Haeckel's theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) is invalid. However, modern textbooks do not defend this theory. They show photographs of embryos of different animals at various stages of development and, lo and behold, embryos do look similar. If you have a problem with that, write to the Creator and complain.
For the long answer, read P. Z. Myers' excellent post Wells and Haeckel's Embryos. If you have specific disagreements with P. Z., write to him.
[Crickets chirping.]
ReplyDeleteoleg:
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit vague, Cornelius. Let me help you a little bit so we can get to the bottom of it together. … Fortunately, it has been preserved … So, where did the mirror image, labeled "Wolf" in your slides, come from? … do not make sense.
Oh no, my clever ploy has been discovered. That little bogus graphic I slipped in, with the “No Darwin” symbol in the background to hypnotize viewers, did not escape the unceasing checks of the evolutionists. I should have known they would find me out.
That is doubtful. Your figures were published in the Proceedings of the IDEA 2002 in San Francisco. The proceedings, with your article "One long argument" on p. 89 and the slide in question on p. 93, have this copyright notice:
Copyright 2002 University of San Francisco and the IDEA Center. The articles contained in these Proceedings are copyright protected individually by the author. Articles may be reproduced in its [sic] entirety for non-commercial use unless otherwise specified by the author.
Hmm, yes, that is doubtful isn’t it. Can’t slip anything past these guys. Of course this was all planned out, long in advance but nothing escapes their unswerving eye. Should never have put in that Copyright!
Everyone knows the internet attracts any nut with an electrical outlet and a keyboard. What people don’t generally know is that it is different with evolution. Here we find highly educated scientists and professors exhibiting the same mentality. All of biology is a fluke that just happened to arise spontaneously, and then for no reason redo the same designs over and over. It’s as laughable as their conspiracy theories.
[Crickets chirping.]
Or maybe ball bearings.
troy:
ReplyDeleteDid I deny gw?
Not directly, no. Did I jump to a false conclusion?
Yes, you did.
If so, my apologies.
Apology accepted.
Professor, do you deny convergence in biology?
No, professor, I don't.
So random mutations just happened to hit on the same intricate designs over and over?
Cornelius Hunter: So random mutations just happened to hit on the same intricate designs over and over?
ReplyDeleteSo she knew that the random jiggles of molecules consistently would carry her perfume across the room into his olfactory recesses? Must be fate!