Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated

John,

I don't think the emails "speak for themselves". This is typical
jumping to conclusions by taking something out of context. Here's the
explanation of the most supposedly controversial email:

The reference to "hide the decline" is referring to work that I am not
directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and
colleagues. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the
response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude
tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to
temperatures after about 1960. In their original article in Nature in
1998, Briffa and colleagues very clear that the post-1960 data in
their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing
temperatures due to a problem known as the "divergence problem" where
their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures
after about 1960. “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the
existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960
data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point
emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article. There is a
summary of that article available on this NOAA site.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Austin-Science-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climatolgist-Michael-Mann-responds-to-CRU-hack

I didn't see this innocent explanation offered on any of the web-sites
fond of using the words "warmist" and "conspiracy" in close proximity
to each other.

I think you should tone down your bluster, especially towards some of
the members of this list, and take care to research the background
before making wild claims about emails taken out of context "speaking
for themselves".

Iain

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:54 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> To my knowledge no one has contested that the content I mentioned  "hiding the decline", "fixing" data, ensuring someone wouldn't be selected for peer review etc., was not authentic. That does speak for itself in my opinion.
>
> If you don't want to accept that those are the actual emails and you don't want to dl them yourself for fear of Rich's virtual moral felony charges, then you are just stuck. However I am quite satisifed that I have seen enough.
>
> Mind you I have never been an AGW denier and this is not just feeding red meat to my prejudices as some would like to believe. In fact I have recommended and forwarded to this list a presentation by an Atmospheric Scientist from GA Tech that came and spoke to our RTB CHapter and she clearly concluded that AGW is supported and I have accepted and endorsed that. A quick scan of the archives would verify that.
>
> What has done it for me and pushed me over the edge however is the shameless and unconscionable double standard of those on this list that would try to protect their anti-science ideology by this childish refuge of quoting Christian ethics to those that threatened their desire to be sheltered from obvious reality . This in my mind casts serious doubt on the individual's scientific credentials as well as their claim to represent truth as a Christian. If this is allowed to stand by the ASA then I am in the wrong place. In my opinion this is just as shameless and disgraceful to the Body as Ken Ham or Henry Morris.
>
> I suspect there are many more that share at least some of these sentiments but are reluctant to say so. I for one however feel compelled to say it.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wed, November 25, 2009 3:20:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated
>
> Sorry John, but I have to contest your analysis here.
>
> Personally, I would say it's a stretch to claim that "we all saw the *actual* e-mails" or that they "speak for themselves".
>
> What *I* saw  were a few excerpts - carefully selected and edited by a journalist with a known anti-GW bias and who - according to qualified scientists I know and trust personally - himself routinely engages in a touch of poetic license when it comes the facts on GW.
>
> Now, before you understand me too quickly let me state very clearly: I am NOT arguing here that Bolt has misrepresented the situation, I am merely pointing out that Bolt's blog amounts, in essence, to commentary - that commentary may be dead on the money - it's not the accuracy of it I'm questioning.
>
> What I AM arguing is that it is simply naive to claim that such commentary is a case of allowing the documents to "speak for themselves."
>
> Indeed, if they were even capable of doing so, the Herald-Sun would simply have published the documents without comment - rather than get one of their staff columnists to to tell us what they mean.
>
> And, again, given that the Ottawa Citizen article doesn't deal with the actual e-mails it merely cites the opinions of a few people who are supposed authorities on the matter to say it "vindicates" claims of impropriety is a stretch.
>
> Again, I'm not saying that the authors of the e-mails are pure of heart and clean of hands - I'm only expressing an observation that people seem to have drawn some very strong conclusions, in a very short period of time. And whilst I could well be a buffoon ideologue living in denial (I'm pretty sure I'm not an ideologue) an awareness of that possibility doesn't help me to see things any more clearly.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
>> My buffoon idealogue comment wasn't directly due to anything in the Ottawa Citizen article. That article was just further vindication of the incredulity of rational people over the defense tactic of selectively hiding behind propriety when it suits the defenders.
>> We all saw the actual emails and what I saw was enough, "hiding the decline", "fixing" data, ensuring someone wouldn't be selected for peer review etc.
>> I think those that are defending this are the ones not engaging in the actual tect of the emails. They speak for themselves unless you are in denial.
>> John
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.