Global Warming

[Bill the Cat]

I see nothing that would preclude Oxburgh from conducting an honest investigation into supposed fraud by the CRU.

That's not what I asked, and you know it. Was there a conflict of interest?

Is finding zero evidence of wrongdoing by the CRU suppose to make people rush out to buy wind turbines?

Well, it sure doesn't hurt the prospects much, does it? What would the effect of saying that there was wrongdoing be on the wind turbine market?

The second report was not just by Professor Oxburgh, it was with six other climate and environment scientific experts. Were they all in on the take too?

See, there's the switcheroo. I never said anything about the validity or invalidity of the findings, or that any of them were intentionally falsifying anything. I was showing that the lead investigator was involved in the very industry that looks to benefit from the data shared by the CRU, so he was not an impartial judge. There was a conflict of interest which should have recused him of being involved in the first place, regardless of the later findings.

You conspiracy kooks are just as bad as the Intelligent Design Creationists flinging mud at Judge Jones after he ruled against them in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

Now THAT is an ad hominem. When you avoid answering a question by attacking me and claiming that I am a "conspiracy kook" by pointing out a simple conflict of interest, while at NO TIME questioning the validity of the findings, then you attack out of frustrated reflex. A conflict of interest and a conspiracy are two vastly different things. So, please do me a favor and save the psychoanalysis for a professional and answer my question.

Why don't you answer my question Bill the Cat? Do you have any evidence the first or second investigation was not done properly, or that the conclusions are incorrect?

- T

No. I don't have any evidence. What I do have is the lack of scientific credentials for the first one to analyze any data to make a conclusion and a clear conflict of interest on the part of the lead investigator of the second. And that's the problem that you refuse to accept because you have bought the whole lock, stock, and barrel and have ejected your critical analysis in the process.

[Tiggy]

That's not what I asked, and you know it. Was there a conflict of interest?

No.

Well, it sure doesn't hurt the prospects much, does it? What would the effect of saying that there was wrongdoing be on the wind turbine market?

None at all.

See, there's the switcheroo. I never said anything about the validity or invalidity of the findings, or that any of them were intentionally falsifying anything. I was showing that the lead investigator was involved in the very industry that looks to benefit from the data shared by the CRU, so he was not an impartial judge. There was a conflict of interest which should have recused him of being involved in the first place, regardless of the later findings.

You're really reaching. How, specifically, does the wind turbine industry benefit by CRU being found innocent of any wrongdoing? AFAICT Lord Oxburgh has impeccable scientific credentials and was eminently qualified to critique CRU's work. You're merely propagating the AGW Denier political smear campaign.

Now THAT is an ad hominem. When you avoid answering a question by attacking me and claiming that I am a "conspiracy kook" by pointing out a simple conflict of interest, while at NO TIME questioning the validity of the findings, then you attack out of frustrated reflex. A conflict of interest and a conspiracy are two vastly different things. So, please do me a favor and save the psychoanalysis for a professional and answer my question.

You attacked Oxburgh out of reflex. I just pointed out you have no credible basis for the attack.

No. I don't have any evidence. What I do have is the lack of scientific credentials for the first one to analyze any data to make a conclusion and a clear conflict of interest on the part of the lead investigator of the second. And that's the problem that you refuse to accept because you have bought the whole lock, stock, and barrel and have ejected your critical analysis in the process.

The credentials of everyone in both investigations are readily available on the web. Your personal opinion that there was a conflict of interest serious enough to warrant recusal is not shared by the scientific community nor by the University of East Anglia. Since you don't have one shred of evidence for any wrongdoing, your personal opinion is worthless to anyone except you.

- T

[Bill the Cat]

No.

Then you are thoroughly insane.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7071751.ece

You're really reaching. How, specifically, does the wind turbine industry benefit by CRU being found innocent of any wrongdoing? AFAICT Lord Oxburgh has impeccable scientific credentials and was eminently qualified to critique CRU's work. You're merely propagating the AGW Denier political smear campaign.

The fact that you even ask that question shows how bankrupt you are scientifically. I've lost all respect for you Tiggy.

You attacked Oxburgh out of reflex. I just pointed out you have no credible basis for the attack.

No you didn't. You gave your opinion that you don't see any conflict of interest. I simply commented on Lord Oxburgh's being involved in the very industry that is benefiting from the vilification of the coal industry. When one whole industry is attacked and the entire world is in on it, the alternative industries will naturally benefit tremendously. The fact that you refuse to connect those two simple dots is proof that you are incompetent to comment rationally on this issue.

The credentials of everyone in both investigations are readily available on the web.

Which is why I commented on the LACK of credentials of the first panel, held by the politicians in England.

Your personal opinion that there was a conflict of interest serious enough to warrant recusal is not shared by the scientific community nor by the University of East Anglia.

East Anglia commissioned the investigation. And the scientists that agree with the anthropogenic global warming proposal are naturally going to agree. Their minds are already made up.

Since you don't have one shred of evidence for any wrongdoing, your personal opinion is worthless to anyone except you.

- T

And you can't connect two simple dots, so your opinion is worthless. Unfortunately, you have the big business of alternative energy behind you, so your opinion is winning the day, at the cost of scientific method.

[Tiggy]

Then you are thoroughly insane.

Or you are. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The fact that you even ask that question shows how bankrupt you are scientifically. I've lost all respect for you Tiggy.

The fact that you swallow uncritically any mud slung by the AGW deniers shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.

No you didn't. You gave your opinion that you don't see any conflict of interest. I simply commented on Lord Oxburgh's being involved in the very industry that is benefiting from the vilification of the coal industry. When one whole industry is attacked and the entire world is in on it, the alternative industries will naturally benefit tremendously. The fact that you refuse to connect those two simple dots is proof that you are incompetent to comment rationally on this issue.

CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!

East Anglia commissioned the investigation. And the scientists that agree with the anthropogenic global warming proposal are naturally going to agree. Their minds are already made up.

CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!

And you can't connect two simple dots, so your opinion is worthless. Unfortunately, you have the big business of alternative energy behind you, so your opinion is winning the day, at the cost of scientific method.

CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!


Did you even bother to read past the sensationalist headline of the Times article?

The university appointed Lord Oxburgh, a geologist and former chairman of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, after consulting the Royal Society, of which he is a fellow.

Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s pro-vice-chancellor for research, said that the university had been aware of Lord Oxburgh’s business interests but believed that he would lead the panel of six scientists “in an utterly objective way”. The panel will meet in Norwich next month.

“The choice of scientists is sure to be the subject of discussion, and experience would suggest that it is impossible to find a group of eminent scientists to look at this issue who are acceptable to every interest group which has expressed a view in the last few months. Similarly it is unlikely that a group of people who have the necessary experience to assess the science, but have formed no view of their own on global warming, could be found.”

He said the scientists has been selected because they had “the right mix of skills to understand the complex nature of climate research and the discipline-based expertise to scrutinise CRU’s research”.

The simple fact is, ANYONE with even the slightest connection to the mainstream AGW scientific position was going to be attacked and vilified by the AGW deniers. They can't deal with the scientific evidence, so dirty political and personal attacks are all they have left.

This admission by you

Do you have any evidence the first or second investigation was not done properly, or that the conclusions are incorrect?

No. I don't have any evidence

.

is the only pertinent thing you had to say.

- T

[Challenger Grim]

Oooohh... definition time!!!

Not to mention that the irony of TIggy complaining about an ad hom attack is so rich I feel bloated.

Why don't you answer my question Tiggy? Is there a conflict of interest for Mr. Oxburg?

And again! I mean, all those times he complained about other people's sources without once pointing out anything remotely incorrect from them...

Ah, thanks Bill, I'm sending you pearls for the laugh you've netted for us..

[Bill the Cat]

Or you are. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Fine by me. I'm content to just see what is obvious.

The fact that you swallow uncritically any mud slung by the AGW deniers shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.

Really? Can you show me where I have swallowed anything in this matter? I haven't even commented on the findings.

CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!



CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!



CONSPIRACY!! CONSPIRACY!!

MONEY!! MONEY!! MONEY!!

Did you even bother to read past the sensationalist headline of the Times article?

Yes, and the Times article missed the whole point. I really don't care what view they espouse, only if they will benefit from one decision over another.

The simple fact is, ANYONE with even the slightest connection to the mainstream AGW scientific position was going to be attacked and vilified by the AGW deniers.

And here is your strawman. I never vilified anyone based on their scientific position. I merely said that this man stands to benefit FINANCIALLY from the result of this inquiry as a result of being the chairman of a wind farm company.

They can't deal with the scientific evidence, so dirty political and personal attacks are all they have left.

dirty political attacks? Showing a conflict of interest is a dirty political attack? You'd make a rather interesting lawyer, Tiggy...

This admission by you

.

is the only pertinent thing you had to say.

- T

Because you have bought the AGW proponents' side and have lost your critical thinking on the matter.

[Tiggy]

Fine by me. I'm content to just see what is obvious.

What is 'obvious' to you is not accepted by mainstream science, nor by the University of East Anglia.

MONEY!! MONEY!! MONEY!!

Yes, and the Times article missed the whole point. I really don't care what view they espouse, only if they will benefit from one decision over another.

And here is your strawman. I never vilified anyone based on their scientific position. I merely said that this man stands to benefit FINANCIALLY from the result of this inquiry as a result of being the chairman of a wind farm company.

There's your big problem. You have yet to show a direct connection between the inquiry results and someone benefiting FINANCIALLY. You have asserted it with the flimsiest of connections. You are also guilty of a major bait-and-switch. The inquiry was not deciding "is AGW real" or "should people give up using fossil fuels and switch to alternative energy". It was over alleged professional misconduct by members of the CRU, period. You may as well assert all the scientists involved in the inquiry are guilty of conflict of interest and would benefit financially, reasoning that may lose their jobs as professional climatologists if no more research is needed.

As was already pointed out - the conflict of interest angle was already examined and dismissed by UEA as being not significant enough to warrant anyone being recused. All the AGW deniers are doing now is whining about the results they don't like, just like they always do.

You have bought the AGW deniers' side and have lost your critical thinking on the matter. To be clear, I don't begrudge you your personal opinion on the matter at all. I'll just point out your personal opinion is a long way from most everyone else's reality.

- T

[Bill the Cat]

What is 'obvious' to you is not accepted by mainstream science, nor by the University of East Anglia.


There's your big problem. You have yet to show a direct connection between the inquiry results and someone benefiting FINANCIALLY. You have asserted it with the flimsiest of connections. You are also guilty of a major bait-and-switch. The inquiry was not deciding "is AGW real" or "should people give up using fossil fuels and switch to alternative energy". It was over alleged professional misconduct by members of the CRU, period. You may as well assert all the scientists involved in the inquiry are guilty of conflict of interest and would benefit financially, reasoning that may lose their jobs as professional climatologists if no more research is needed.

As was already pointed out - the conflict of interest angle was already examined and dismissed by UEA as being not significant enough to warrant anyone being recused. All the AGW deniers are doing now is whining about the results they don't like, just like they always do.

You have bought the AGW deniers' side and have lost your critical thinking on the matter. To be clear, I don't begrudge you your personal opinion on the matter at all. I'll just point out your personal opinion is a long way from most everyone else's reality.

- T

Y'know what? I had a nice reply to you, but the computer ate it because I didn't check that "remember me" checkbox. Now that I think about it, nevermind. If you can't see the bias, I can't make you open your eyes.

[FLovell]

...Ah, thanks Bill, I'm sending you pearls for the laugh you've netted for us..

So am I! -- Frank

[grmorton]

I just saw Tiggy's signature:

"Glenn Morton has earned the honor of being the only person banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for being an obnoxious jerk. Congratulations, Morton. ASA doesn't see a single thing you write. "

That sig has not the slightest bit of creativity and originality in it. It is a sad, semi-copy of my signature. Tsk Tiggy, can't you at least think of an original insult?

[Augustine2004]

It's not clear what the carbon footprint is, but shouldn't ol' Al be doing a bit more for Gaia and less for himself & his family?

http://www.latimes.com/features/home...,4103538.story

[Calminian]

I just saw Tiggy's signature:

"Glenn Morton has earned the honor of being the only person banned forever by the Amer. Scientific Affiliation, a Christian Scientific Group, for being an obnoxious jerk. Congratulations, Morton. ASA doesn't see a single thing you write. "

That sig has not the slightest bit of creativity and originality in it. It is a sad, semi-copy of my signature. Tsk Tiggy, can't you at least think of an original insult?

Ha, I was wondering about that. I figured he must have hacked your emails or something.

[Tiggy]

Ha, I was wondering about that. I figured he must have hacked your emails or something.

No, I actually read many of the posts made to the ASA and saw the drama play out, including the one where ASA finally had enough of Morton's baseless accusations and blustering BS. Then when Morton decided to try and insult me by putting my name in his sig, the chance to use his own words to tweak his nose was too good to pass up.

- T

[grmorton]

Ha, I was wondering about that. I figured he must have hacked your emails or something.

Tiggy has no originality.

[Tiggy]

Tiggy has no originality.

Morton has no integrity. Guess which one's more important.

- T