A long series on climate change

[W. Rabbit]

You believe it. You say you're a scientist. But by your own admission you haven't even read the evidence.

I said I hadn't specifically read the leaked emails.

Why? Because I watched Professor Muller's dissection of that event first and realized it would have been a waste of time.

In fact, Muller explained the ENTIRE situation with CRU scientifically, without bias. So after watching his dissection (explained in clear layman's terms), it was enough for me to breathe safely and know that good science will win.

The CRU scandal is pulp science, to put it bluntly. There are other credible scientists working on the issue that aren't under suspicion, or obvious trolls for the energy industry.

So, I am currently following research like Muller's and I use it when people ask me where I think good, verifiable AWG science is being done.

I actually knew Muller from before his AWG work because of my astrophysics hobbies.

No investigation.

Not a fraud investigation. Because what occurred was not really fraud.

Again, I am using Muller's work to support this. Muller doesn't think what happened was fraud either. His assertion is that it was just unprofessional.

Rajendra Pachauri's not a climatologist by the way. He's a railway engineer turned economist. That's who is in charge of the IPCC.

He's a Nobel prize winning mechanical engineer with a long history in the fields of resource and energy management. But that's not important because he has thousands of climate scientists in multiple countries working under him.

It's not one bad scientist. There are lots of names in those emails. Why don't you go and look?

I don't have to. Those leaked emails will be fodder for conspiracy theorists for years.

I'd rather follow Professor Muller's work and others to come with data that will support IPCC. I have yet to see anything concrete from the "other side"...just a lot of pandering, really.

Yes. Do you know how many people have actually tried to repeat the CRU's results by analysing their raw data?

Do you?

Name them.

Again, I don't have to name them. The conclusions reached by CRU have been, thus far, supported by independent review.

Guess who's review that was?

Hope you guessed Professor Muller's. And as of March 2011, he was only 2% done. But boy the anti-AWG crowd didn't like what he had to tell Congress.

Like Stephen Hawking said, science will win in the end because it works.

[Cullion]

I said I hadn't specifically read the leaked emails.

Why? Because I watched Professor Muller's dissection of that event first and realized it would have been a waste of time.

In fact, Muller explained the ENTIRE situation scientifically. So after watching his dissection (explained in clear layman's terms), it was enough for me to breathe safely and know that good science will win.

I don't know why you keep using bold for emphasis when all you really have to say is 'no I haven't read the evidence'.

Not a fraud investigation. Because what occurred was not really fraud.

How would he know that in 2010 without having conducted an investigation? Silly, circular reasoning. And yes, it absolutely was fraud.

Again, I am using Muller's work to support this. Muller doesn't think what happened was fraud either. His assertion is that it was just unprofessional.

Go and read the evidence.

He's a Nobel prize winning mechanical engineer with a long history in the fields of resource and energy management.

Obama has a Nobel Prize too. Rajendra Pachauri's academic publications are in the field of economics, not climatology.

I don't have to. Those leaked emails will be fodder for conspiracy theorists for years.

I'd rather follow Professor Muller's work and others that support IPCC.

It's called burying your head in the sand.

Again, I don't have to name them. The conclusions reached by CRU have been, thus far, supported by independent review.

No they haven't. So far the only completed independent reviews which attempted to reproduce their results, or Michal Mann's couldn't. You don't know what you're talking about.

Guess who's review that was?

Hope you guessed Professor Muller's. And as of March 2011, he was only 2% done.

I can see now why you're widely considered an idiot.

[W. Rabbit]

I don't know why you keep using bold for emphasis when all you really have to say is 'no I haven't read the evidence'.

Because it's irrelevant evidence, and you're using it to hedge a conspiracy theory.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

How would he know that in 2010 without having conducted an investigation? Silly, circular reasoning. And yes, it absolutely was fraud.

Glad you used the word "absolutely" and sunk your entire argument (again).

So you've become the judge, jury, and executioner of climate science.

Now no one here can take you seriously.

Obama has a Nobel Prize too. Rajendra Pachauri's academic publications are in the field of economics, not climatology.

Go check sources of what kind of economics he teaches.

Yes, the economics of land, energy, and environmental management. The exact sort of person who should lead a body like the IPCC. But sadly, also a target for drive-by tabloid smear campaigns...like yours.

It's called burying your head in the sand.

OH...that's a good one coming from someone who dismissed AWG because he didn't like what some emails said, even though other scientists outside the "inner circle" of IPCC went and actually gathered field data, and the conclusions (so far) still check out.

No they haven't. So far the only completed independent review which attempted to reproduce their results couldn't.

You keep ignoring what Muller is doing. This was exactly why I said earlier I was glad you posted him...because a million people have shown me that video claiming it's proof AWG is wrong, and I get to enjoy telling them that's not what he said.

Did Muller lie to Congress in March 2011? Now that would be some criminal ****.

I can see why: it tears a huge hole in the sky of your line of argument.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Says you, the thread minority. Check again: no one in the thread has bought your bullshit.

And I'm not a conspiracy theorist...but you are.

I can see now why you're widely considered an idiot.

Ah, an ad hom generalization. You're breaking up.

[Cullion]

Muller hasn't finished his investigation, and his evidence to congress wasn't part of an investigation into fraud in the UK.

You are trying to make a virtue of your own ignorance, and it's just too silly.
I don't for one minute believe you're the scientist you claimed to be earlier in the thread.

Goodbye dullard.

[W. Rabbit]

Muller hasn't finished his investigation, and his evidence to congress wasn't part of an investigation into fraud in the UK.

Yes, I've posted twice that he's not finished. But thanks for letting me know.

So you used Muller to support your argument...and now you want to dismiss him.

Talk about circular.

You are trying to make a virtue of your own ignorance, and it's just too silly.
I don't for one minute believe you're the scientist you claimed to be earlier in the thread.

You don't appear to believe in good science, Cullion.

That's what makes me a decent scientist (other than the actual science education): if I trust anything, it's not emails, or conclusions, or rhetoric.

I trust the scientific method, like Dr. Hawking and Dr. Muller.

I have faith that good science prevails over rhetoric, as it did with relativity.

Goodbye dullard.

:Baww:

[JohnnyCache]

Cullion, you do know people can do things other than that field their degree is in, right? That mechanical engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists, etc, could all have jobs to do in the AGW field?

Say Cullion how did that fraud investigation Mueller's testimony wasn't "part of" end?

[Cullion]

Cullion, you do know people can do things other than that field their degree is in, right? That mechanical engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists, etc, could all have jobs to do in the AGW field?

Rajendra Pachauri hasn't worked in the field.

Say Cullion how did that fraud investigation Mueller's testimony was "part of" end?

Muller didn't give testimony at any of the Hadley CRU investigations. I think you're starting to confuse my posts with other peoples'. You seem quite muddled about exactly who has been accused of what, what the evidence for those accusations is, and who has investigated them.

I suggest becoming familiar with it, but there's a lot of reading to do.

[JohnnyCache]

It was actually a typo, the correction was cross posted
but you're the "confused" one I think because you keep making something out of nothing here...I'm seriously not sure you understand just what the CRU leak concerned at this point, since you keep making this bizarre big deal out of it.

There's a legitimate point in the so called "climategate" but it's not about data

[Cullion]

Johnny, you haven't addressed any of my points from the last page and I don't believe for one minute you've actually read the leaked CRU emails. I pointed out pages ago what was wrong with the British climategate investigations.

This is a troll.

[JohnnyCache]

yes cullion...it's a trooooooooooool ...no one could believe that this is a bullshit nontroversy everyone who would ever disagree with your pearls of rush-limbaugh quality "wisdom" is a big dumb troll

I don't believe you've actually read them and contextualized them

you're trolling

so there

so productive.

you have no points, you've made no points, your points are "it could maybe be something else" (hence the need for more study and attempted solutions) "I don't like the proposed solution ergo there is no problem" (letting your political agenda color your science) and "the emails speak for themselves" (they don't, this is called taking something out of context)

You say you're "making points" but you're actually referring to the offscreen points of others. You say no one is refuting your points, but really you just have your fingers jammed in your ears.