David K.'s Comments
Page 1 of 905  first | prev | next 
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 11:57am EST
It appears as if this is but the tip of the iceberg.

Better hurry, the ice caps are melting fast.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 11:55am EST
May I direct you to but one of the MANY emails regarding the violation of Data Practices law in direct violation of Britain's Freedom of Information laws?

This is the only one I've seen. How is that "MANY?"

If you cannot see the illegality here, you simply do not understand FOI or Data Practices law.

I can see that you have implied, well, stated, that there is illegality here. Have they been arrested? Or are people guilty in the UK before being charged with anything just because you say they are guilty.

Not to mention that one email doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. You've take the one red ball and ignored the barrel of blue balls.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 11:41am EST
I'm not doing any spinning. But the wind is blowing pretty steady from all the wild arm waving being done by the denialist industry. It's really rather pathetic.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 11:40am EST
But no, emails sent or recieved from a public institution are public property and there is NO EXPECTATION of privacy.

There is always an expectation of privacy. The institution may have a right to disseminate emails, but this is not the case. Instead, the emails were stolen illegally. You seem to have forgotten that.

I posted the email in its entirety without comment. Romm spun it like a top.

Haven't we already been down this road. You posted the email with the insinuation that it was somehow nefarious. It isn't. Romm provided contextual information that allowed the reader to understand what the email did, and did not, mean. The only spinning being done here is you.

Since you neglected to comment on my point number 5, I will repeat it.

Gee, sorry I missed it. I suppose lost track amongst all the rest of the stuff you seem to keep repeating.

5) You seem only to be concerned about the legal provenience of the email but have no similar regard for the illegalities contained within them.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I did address this somewhere already. First, you infer incorrectly. I have a big problem with illegalities. Second, there are none in the emails.

The email reveal a pattern of illegal behavior by the world's top climate scientists.

They reveal nothing of the sort. You've created this fantasy in your own mind because you have to in an effort to make your accusations sound important. Furthermore, you've taken a handful of emails out of a 1000 stolen, reinterpreted them from your own distorted view of their significance, and created a "pattern." What you've done is taken one piece of a puzzle, painted in red, and called it a Chinese flag. It's not. It's one piece of a puzzle you painted red.

Conspiring to thwart an FOI request will land a few of them in court, if not in jail.

Please. You don't even know what was the topic of the emails. They seem to be suggesting that they didn't want some biased free market lobbyist cherry picking data to mischaracterized, just like is being done with these emails. Why don't you let others decide if there was anything illegal in the emails before you go off and condemn the whole basis for climate science.

Yeah, that's right, climate science. The tens of thousands of studies by thousands of researchers in countries all over the world - all of which has been building up for many decades. And none of which changes because one fed up climate scientist referred to a denialist as an idiot.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 10:45am EST
If anything is revealed by the CRU Emails, it is this. The way climate science is being practiced by its leaders, is anything but open. It is petty, insular and faith driven.

The emails reveal no such thing. You've created this fantasy from your biased extrapolation from a few emails out of a 1000.

Saying otherwise, in the face of the emails text, is simply Orwell on steroids.

Saying otherwise is a recognition of reality. The fact that you've now mentioned Orwell at least twice demonstrates your obsession with a free market/libertarian ideology. That in itself isn't a problem, lots of people are libertarian, just as lots of people are conservative, liberal, and rational. The problem arises when you lose track of what is ideological bias versus critical thinking. Unfortunately, the denialist industry starts with the ideological conclusion - they don't like regulations - and then back tracks from there to see what they can do to disrupt anything that might be leading to those regulations. And non-science free market lobbying groups like Heartland Institute and its brethren have a history of denying the science to protect their members' distaste for being regulated.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 10:39am EST
Let's be clear, RealClimate.org is the voice of at least two of the people whose emails were released, Gavin Schmidt and Micheal Mann.

Yes, let's be clear, RealClimate.org is a blog "on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists."

As opposed to WUWT, Icecap and others that are run by former weathermen with no climate experience and associated with the Heartland Institute.

Putting aside the obvious illegal behavior which will toast their careers,

There has been no illegal behavior in any of the emails I've seen.

the emails reveal these guys are believers, not scientists.

No, the emails reveal that these guys are scientists who have seen and understand the totality of the data and are examining all of the data, even that which seems contradictory.

For example, from Climate Progress:

"Trenberth says, “If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists. The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”

Here is Trenberth explaining what his e-mail in fact meant in context:

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

“It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says."

Gee, think the denialists have spun the email in circles?
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 10:20am EST
I am pleased to learn that you have mastered the alphabet. Apparently you find significance in the placement of Mr. Briffa's name, while that may be important to you it was not important to me.

Actually, you were the one who implied significance to his name being first. Don't you remember?

What is important is something you and I have been going on about from the beginning. It is painfully obvious that due diligence is a problem among climate scientists.

It's painfully obvious to you because that's what you want to believe. That's what happens when the only thing you see is what you want to look at.

I didn't create the scenario, a lead author of IPCC AR4 did by not checking the temperature record in the Yamal Peninsula to verify the conclusion of his study against simple observation.

However, that is the least of Briffa's problems. The worst is that he refused to archive his data then stonewalled its release for eight years. Only when he made the mistake of publishing in a Royal Society journal was he required to release his data.

Science is iterative. That's why no one study is taken as gospel. It is the totality of the data that are important. The accusation you make is relevant only to a small part of Briffa's work, and Briffa's work is only a small part of that totality of the climate science data.

It took two days for the skeptics to point out the flaws in his study....flaws that the CRU emails reveal that everyone knew about but helped cover up.

The emails reveal no such thing.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 10:16am EST
Obviously, you have not read the emails.

Nothing you or anyone else supports your hand waving accusations.

Many emails contain references to deleting correspondance and data to avoid disclosure under pending Freedom of Information requests.

A couple of emails. Not many. And what do you think that correspondence was about? You don't know. You've chosen to believe it is whatever fits your preconceived scenario. It could easily be that they were tired of being harrassed by people who's sole purpose is to cherry pick some odd lines from emails and go running down the hall waving their hands. It seems the denialist industry is fond of cherry picking and then extrapolating into some fantasy land of their own creation.

That is illegal, David, it is much more serious than releasing emails which are public property and carry NO IMPLICIT right of privacy.

Are you saying you have never deleted an email? You've created this false premise and then are using it as a basis for interpretation, which by definition is then false. You've also assumed that these emails are somehow hiding data that contradicts the other tens of thousands of studies conducted over three decades by thousands of researchers all over the world. Based on the information in the emails, nothing they did was illegal.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 10:09am EST
You have a knack for irony, David. A large number of the emails are conversations between lead IPCC authors on how to break the law.

Your interpretation has no basis in truth. There is nothing in any of the emails that suggests breaking the law.

Are you suggesting that Daniel Ellsberg should NOT have released The Pentagon Papers? Are you suggesting what he did was wrong?

Ellsberg was tried for theft, conspiracy, espionage, and a few other things. The case ended in a mistrial because the government used illegal wiretaps, break-ins, and a few other prosecutorial violations. Seemed to be a problem for the Nixon administration at that time.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 10:02am EST
Then what was your claim? The way you flip ethical polarity makes one dizzy.

I haven't done any flipping. You simply are so locked into your two-dimensional thinking that you can't disconnect your biases from what I've said.

Either it is right or wrong to take money from ENRON, Exxon, Shell, BP, Goldman-Sachs, GE, and Leyman Brothers or it is not.

First off, that's pretty funny given that Heartland Institute is an industry lobbying group. But hey, let's ignore that and ask the next question that is begged from your statement.

Do you own any stock (or mutual funds that own stocks) in any or all of those companies? Is that right or wrong?

You seem to suggest that it is wrong to take money from these companies to present the full range of opinion regarding the climate, but it is okay to take their money to present an over-hyped hysterical fear-driven view of the climate.

I suggest no such thing. Again, you either are having trouble grasping simple concepts or are intentionally creating some fantasy meaning that comports with your biases.

What we're really talking about is getting your science from scientists who study the science....OR....getting your science from non-science free market lobbying groups whose missions are to protect their non-science member companies from any regulations that might be required to deal with the science.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 9:55am EST
1) The email IS in the public domain. I violated no law or ethics.

Perhaps now it is in the public domain. Ethics is another matter.

2) The email IS public property and to be precise, it is my public property and yours since the Climate Reseach Unit of The University of East Anglia recieves U.S. Government funding.

Do they? Why does that matter? The US Government gives funding to every country on the planet, so do we own everything China does too?

3) Because the CRU is a public entity, there is no expectation of privacy. I am very familiar with the law concerning public data and it works in the U.K, the same way it does here.

You think there is no expectation of privacy for individuals?

4) Unlike Romm who cherry-picked the email, I presented it in full form.

You presented it with innuendo implying that it did something that it didn't. Romm addressed the actual issue and provided additional information and context so that it could be accurately interpreted. In other words, while Romm's intent was to inform the discussion, your intent was to inflame the conspiracy passions of like-minded denialists and obfuscate any issue to confuse the public.

Nice try.
Dec 25, 2008 | rating: 10 | comments: 31
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 9:28am EST
Yes, it was Dan E in George's "Climate Change is Fake" post. (That in itself is pretty funny)
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 8:56am EST
Interesting. I would say the difference today is that the scientists are now practicing science openly whereas the masses are merely confused by the intentional misinformation that we see running rampant from non-science free market lobbying groups.

Unfortunately, while access to the internet brings a ton of information to the masses, there is no review and anyone can post whatever they want whether it has any basis in truth or logic. As Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum say in their book, Unscientific America:

“[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.”
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 8:51am EST
First off, did you actually read my earlier comment?

Secondly, you started with a faulty premise and then tilted at your self-constructed windmill.

Thirdly, this part that you wrote gave me a laugh:

Go to your IPCC AR4, flip to the first page of Chapter 6. Who is the first name you see? That is right Dr. Keith Briffa (UK)

Spell with me now. A= no author with a last name starting with A, B = Briffa, C= well, you get the idea.

The authors are listed alphabetically. Unlike your cherry picking to try to support your predetermined and biased conclusion, ALL of the authors contributed to that chapter of the report. And Briffa isn't even one of the two "Coordinating Lead Authors." He's just one of the 14 "Lead Authors." There are also 33 "Contributing Authors," and 2 "Review Editors," not to mention a slew of "Reviewers" who also reviewed the drafts.

All of these people contribute to the development of the report.

But you have decided that all of that can be ignored if you cherry pick one email that doesn't actually do what you claim it does, demonize the author, and then try to suggest that the whole process is contaminated by your biased interpretation of that one email out of a 1000.

Yep.

This is his premiere paper we are talking about and the science is so bad, it is like a airline neglecting to fuel a plane and all the peers, like pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer fail to catch "the outlier".

No, you've created this whole scenario in your mind to support your preconceived notion. The uncertainties of Briffa's work have been discussed in the science world, as have the uncertainties about all science, all the time.

In contrast, the denialist industry simply states things with complete certainty, even when they are false, faked, make no logical sense, and/or are contrary to the entire body of science.

Go figure.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by David K.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 8:34am EST
I get a lot of that, Jack.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Jack E.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 8:34am EST
So what you are saying, David, is when Robert L. Bradley was lobbying for Kyoto and writing speeches for ENRON's Ken Lay, he was a good guy, it is only when he began working for other interests that he became the bad guy.

I make no such claim. I merely point out that you are throwing stones in a glass house. And given that you make up half the stones as you go along, it really is difficult to take anything you say seriously.
Nov 21, 2009 | rating: 6.7 | comments: 102
in reply to a comment by Chris W.
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 8:32am EST
So let me see if I understand this, David. It is not okay for me to quote an email that is in public domain because I am critical of the hype surrounding climate change but it is okay for Joseph Romm to quote the same email because he supports the hype surrounding climate change.

Typical logical gymnastics to create this pitiful bastardization of what I said.

First off, you printed an entire email that is not legally in the public domain and was obtained illegally. Secondly, Joseph Romm did not print the Trenberth email, he extracted portions of it. He also posted this immediately under the extracted portions:

"Note: No, I’m not thrilled with reprinting part of an illegally stolen e-mail, but this was in Wired and has been confirmed by the author and actually deals with the science."

See, Romm has professional ethics, but after verifying that the email was in fact real he used a portion of it to discuss the science. On the other hand, the denialist industry posted the entire email illegally, and then implied that it was some sort of smoking gun of deceit, which is absolutely isn't. Romm offered additional information to put the email into context, the denialists take it completely out of context and use innuendo to create their intended and deceitful predetermined conclusion.

I guess I understand that all too well.

Clearly you don't.
Sep 18, 2009 | rating: 10 | comments: 48
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 5:53am EST
For me, the real question is why are our President and Secretary of State backing Zelaya and his friend Hugo Chavez. No one has been willing to ask them that question as far as I can tell.

You must not be watching the news, Randy. A lot of people are asking that question. And they have answered it.
Sep 6, 2009 | rating: 7.8 | comments: 17
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 5:51am EST
I will bet you never bothered to read any of the IPCC reports.

I will bet that all the scientists who study climate science read the IPCC reports, and are more familiar with them and capable of interpreting them than humor writers.
Sep 6, 2009 | rating: 7.8 | comments: 17
David K. Nov 22, 2009, 5:49am EST
This of course assumes that all peer-reviewd studies regarding climate change are in agreement and have equal, or any, value.

It doesn't assume that at all. Each study provides whatever input it provides. The sum total of all of the studies, including anything published in the peer-reviewed literature by the few denialists who actually study climate science, is scrutinized and evaluated. You can't cherry pick the ones you like.

Different studies provide different pieces of the puzzle. Some provide big pieces or a lot of pieces, while others provide smaller pieces or individual pieces. And still others just confirm pieces that we already had.

The rest of your comment is so fraught with ideological spin that it isn't worth the time to answer.
Page 1 of 905  first | prev | next 
 
David K.
Here, There, and Everywhere

http://thedakepage.blogspot.com/
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16811, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.