|
Post by socold on Dec 5, 2011 1:09:16 GMT
The motives you ascribe them are contradicted by the passages I quoted from the emails.
What they wrote in those passages clearly shows their motives against the S&B paper were honorable.
Or are we suddenly to not believe the words in the emails are the scientists inner most behind-closed-doors thoughts anymore?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 5, 2011 3:27:21 GMT
The motives you ascribe them are contradicted by the passages I quoted from the emails.
What they wrote in those passages clearly shows their motives against the S&B paper were honorable.
Or are we suddenly to not believe the words in the emails are the scientists inner most behind-closed-doors thoughts anymore?
Socold motives are never honorable or dishonorable. Only actions are honorable or dishonorable.
The Teams actions were dishonorable. One cannot excuse dishonorable actions because they believed somebody else was dishonorable. Two wrongs do not make a right.
We had a huge national debate on that recently about torturing prisoners. The majority rejected the minorities position that lives might be saved by being dishonorable.
Some middle of the road folks thought that maybe one could torture as long as you don't get caught and save lives without losing honor. Perhaps so but that wasn't what the debate is or was about.
The debate is about people who got caught being dishonorable and no claim of honorable motives can or should save them and the reason they should not be saved is precisely due to the damage to the future that arises from the smearing of science. Its the exact same problem as torturing. You torture because they torture so in future conflicts your men get tortured because you tortured.
Judith Curry gets this. Most people get it. Why not you?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 5, 2011 3:40:10 GMT
There's nothing dishonorable about taking action against subversion of peer review at a journal that has allowed a poor paper to be published for political reasons.
The reason I focus on their motives is that the climategate 2.0 argument in this case is based on motive - that the S&B paper was good and the scientists only attacked it because it was a threat to them.
The emails contradict that.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 5, 2011 4:26:19 GMT
There's nothing dishonorable about taking action against subversion of peer review at a journal that has allowed a poor paper to be published for political reasons. The reason I focus on their motives is that the climategate 2.0 argument in this case is based on motive - that the S&B paper was good and the scientists only attacked it because it was a threat to them. The emails contradict that. The fraudulent 'enhanced hockey stick' was used against S&B. What part of that don't you understand? In fact, do you even know what S&B was about?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Dec 5, 2011 5:45:05 GMT
Socold thinks that paranoid ramblings about imagined "subversion of peer review" justifies documented subversion of peer review by The Team.
On the point of astrophysicists having a personal agenda - isn't Tamino an astrophysicist? Do Steve or Socold know him personally by any chance? His real name is Grant Foster if that rings a bell.
|
|
|
Post by byz on Dec 5, 2011 10:14:57 GMT
it is pointless arguing with them. I stopped when they were talking about millimetres of sea level rise measured by satellite radar, however you cannot measure such fine detail from space as anything less than 7cm is absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. oxygen, water vapour...etc). I realised that it was like nailing jelly (jello for our American friends) to a wall, a completely pointless exercise.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 5, 2011 14:03:33 GMT
There's nothing dishonorable about taking action against subversion of peer review at a journal that has allowed a poor paper to be published for political reasons.
It is dishonorable when you subvert peer review at a journal to do it!
That negates any and all previous subversion and suggests such subversion is A-OK. . . .which negates the motive.
In fact your argument gives S&B an OK to do it because one could argue it was done in response to Mann's Hockey Stick which in itself was a subversion of peer review at a journal done for political purposes. Even the NAS spanked Mann for using inappropriate proxies.
The reason I focus on their motives is that the climategate 2.0 argument in this case is based on motive - that the S&B paper was good and the scientists only attacked it because it was a threat to them.
Your ethics are all screwed up Socold.
One can use motive to weigh inspiration for action and sometimes motive can excuse action or enhance it but it is only a consideration. Climategate 2.0 does not look at motives it looks at action. In this case a conspiracy.
One cannot commit adultery in your mind. Adultery is committed by the act of adultery.
Claiming a motive of protecting the peer review process and shielding journals from political articles is a good motive but its not a good motive when the motive is to only protect peer review and journals from political articles of one political point of view.
Using the excuse you are using goes beyond simply trying to provide an excuse and enters the arena of actually and actively admitting the Team was wrong in what they did.
Finally, even if one does believe that S&B's work was politically motivated and they actually took action to subvert peer review, the Team chose the wrong vehicle in producing a Hide the Decline article and doing exactly what the believed S&B was doing, in effect, endorsing S&B's suspected motives and actions.
Such an approach completely removes themselves from having any standing to criticize S&B. As to yourself, you have done the same thing. You have demonstrated your bias, removing yourself as having any credibility to criticize S&B as well.
I tend to think there is no evidence of any manipulation of the peer review process or political motivation of S&B. Their paper may not be conclusive, may even have some minor errors, but there is no evidence of suppressing evidence as there is in the Team's article.
If you can produce some suppressed data from S&B that will reflect negatively on S&B but does absolutely nothing to absolve the team for their actions. But I don't think you can do even that or you would have already done it.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 5, 2011 17:17:46 GMT
Very honorable indeed. It appears that the hockey stick was know to be a piece of schstic all along. Seems like Neville would defend anything as honorable. "Tim Barnett on the hockey stick- “statistics were suspect”–the rest of the team knew of problems with Mann’s reconstruction" " From: Tim Barnett [[2]mailto:XXXXXXXXXXX@ucsd.edu] Sent: 11 October 2004 16:42 To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Re: spring meeting not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim" wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick-statistics-were-suspectthe-rest-of-the-team-knew-of-problems-with-manns-reconstruction/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 22, 2011 1:29:29 GMT
Mr. Green's reach to tallbloke's computers draws notice as it should. Why is Mr. Green investigating the reporters and not the perpetrators of the fraud of AGW. The Emails are genuine and represent gaming of tax payers monies for Billions of dollars. "U.S. Justice Department request puts chill on skeptical bloggers" "By Donna Laframboise In recent days I’ve been receiving calls and emails asking what the U.S. Justice Department wants with me. In fact, there has been a misunderstanding. I write a blog about climate-change dogma that has a similar Web address to a blogger in the United States. It is that person — who publishes under the pen name Jeff Id at NOconsensus.wordpress.com — who is being targeted. Earlier this month, a trial attorney employed by the Justice Department’s criminal division sent a formal request to WordPress (the blogging software company) to freeze for 90 days “all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession” regarding three climate-skeptic blogs. ClimateAudit.org — written by Canadian Steve McIntyre and hosted on WordPress’ U.S.-based servers — was one of that trio. So was Tallbloke’s Talkshop, written by a U.K. resident and published at tallbloke.wordpress.com. The Justice Department is interested in WordPress records spanning three days — Nov. 21 to 23 inclusive. At 4:09 a.m. on Nov. 22, someone calling themselves FOIA made a comment on McIntyre’s blog. It consisted solely of a link to a zip file posted online at a Russian Web address. The zip file contained 5,000 emails written by some of the most prominent names in climate science." opinion.financialpost.com/2011/12/20/climate-crackdown/
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 22, 2011 2:13:25 GMT
The hacking of the emails is a crime and given that crimes get investigated why would you be surprised that those investigating would start with the blogs the hacker posted to? Probably a dead end, but they have to investigate somewhere and ironically they are probably only investigating because this one got high publicity. They aren't saying the blogs are guilty of anything, it's like if a crime occurred in someones house the police would want access to the house.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 22, 2011 3:02:38 GMT
The hacking of the emails is a crime and given that crimes get investigated why would you be surprised that those investigating would start with the blogs the hacker posted to? Probably a dead end, but they have to investigate somewhere and ironically they are probably only investigating because this one got high publicity. They aren't saying the blogs are guilty of anything, it's like if a crime occurred in someones house the police would want access to the house. There's a reason why his name is 'FOIA'. Figure it out. So why is Obama's jack booted thugs involved?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 22, 2011 3:08:51 GMT
The hacking of the emails is a crime and given that crimes get investigated why would you be surprised that those investigating would start with the blogs the hacker posted to? Probably a dead end, but they have to investigate somewhere and ironically they are probably only investigating because this one got high publicity. They aren't saying the blogs are guilty of anything, it's like if a crime occurred in someones house the police would want access to the house. How do you know they were hacked?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 22, 2011 4:01:29 GMT
The hacking of the emails is a crime and given that crimes get investigated why would you be surprised that those investigating would start with the blogs the hacker posted to? Probably a dead end, but they have to investigate somewhere and ironically they are probably only investigating because this one got high publicity. They aren't saying the blogs are guilty of anything, it's like if a crime occurred in someones house the police would want access to the house. How do you know they were hacked? Exactly. The law that definitely was broken was refusing the legal access to emails as outlined by FOIA laws here and in the UK. That is the bottom line. Michael Mann is being protected by the same university that protected the pedophile at Penn State; mustn't tarnish their image you know.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 25, 2011 16:39:24 GMT
The "scientists" notice that YAD06 maybe is not the best representative of the entire world but later note that funding is important to go with political fear mongering. AGW defenders truly believe in the cause. Their personal financial cause that is and it requires team work. "Mann hockey stick co-author Bradley: “it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right”" " Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. in the (very few) proxies that we used." "I’ve lost sleep fussing about the figure coupling Mann et al. (or any alternative climate-history time series) to the IPCC scenarios. It seems to me to encapsulate the whole past-future philosophical dilemma that bugs me on and off (Ray – don’t stop reading just yet!), to provide potentially the most powerful peg to hang much of PAGES future on, at least in the eyes of funding agents, and, by the same token, to offer more hostages to fortune for the politically motivated and malicious. It also links closely to the concept of being inside or outside ‘the envelope’ – which begs all kinds of notions of definition. " wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/24/mann-hockey-stick-co-author-bradley-it-may-be-that-mann-et-al-simply-dont-have-the-long-term-trend-right/#more-53634
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 31, 2011 13:53:57 GMT
The hacking of the emails is a crime and given that crimes get investigated why would you be surprised that those investigating would start with the blogs the hacker posted to? Probably a dead end, but they have to investigate somewhere and ironically they are probably only investigating because this one got high publicity. They aren't saying the blogs are guilty of anything, it's like if a crime occurred in someones house the police would want access to the house. How do you know they were hacked? it's what all the evidence points to
|
|