McFail asks:
Have you ever paid to be a member here Rog?

Yes.

It's a real convenient place to spread your rot for free isn't it?

Roger Caffin seems to enjoy it.

I see. When were you a member?

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 17:26:31 MDT.

>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations -- but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity -- compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
>>> results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
>>> here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
>>> forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
>>>
>>> Tom.
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> thanks Tom,
>>>> I've taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
>>>> together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
>>>> prepared for an earlier RealClimate post.

Is this more stolen and hacked email somebody innocently sent you?

When were you actually a member here?

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 17:30:29 MDT.

McFail asks:
I see. When were you a member?

Your delusions of grandeur are growing. You are not my inquisitor. Neither am I your defendant.

Things are heating up aren't they?

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

Climategate analysis

by

John P. Costella
B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.

Folks,

You do understand that this is a no-win conversation, don't you?

Personally, I have to give a lot of weight to the fact that the overwhelming majority, 97-98% or so, of those actively professional in the field (as defined by peer-reviewed publications in the appropriate scientific journals) support AGW.

It is certainly still an evolving area -- there's a lot we don't yet understand about it. It seem far more likely that the changes will be improvements in our understanding of how AGW works, but it is logically possible that the whole thing get overturned.

It is clear that some in this thread disagree with the above. What I'd ask them for is references to peer-reviewed publication (in the appropriate journals) that is anti-AGW. There is some, but it is very much the minority view.

Absent that, as far as I can see the vociferous opposition comes mostly from True Believers -- in the US generally associated with right-wing politics -- and no amount of discussion will sway a True Believer.

So no, you have not even tried to publish. I see.

You are not a scientist, you just play one on your blog.

I was just reading today that the information was NOT leaked by a whistleblower but that it was hacked from outside. This report starts off immediately with a LIE. The copyright of this piece of rubbish is 2010. The investitgation just ended recently yet you put this tripe in front of everyone here.

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 17:59:31 MDT.

Bob says:
the overwhelming majority, 97-98% or so, of those actively professional in the field (as defined by peer-reviewed publications in the appropriate scientific journals) support AGW.

That claim rests on a 'survey' of 10,000 people whittled down to 67 respondents. It's a joke.

What I'd ask them for is references to peer-reviewed publication (in the appropriate journals) that is anti-AGW.

And would you read them and think about them if I supplied you with such a list?
Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah, be careful. Do you like Tripe? You assume we never read items from the other side Rog. I was chastised just a while ago by Jerry for reading at your site. Do you really think I don't read what the other clowns write? I immediately found a lie in the report you just posted. A person does not have to read this stuff over and over to realize you and the like of you will just keep posting the latest rubbish and lies over and over and over again. Why don't you just start doing personal house calls and cram it down people throats in person so they can experience the joys of your body odors as well?

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 18:11:59 MDT.

The police statement made at the closure of the case doesn't assert any proof either way. In any case, the content of the emails is a lot more revealing of the state of climate science than a fruitless argument over who disseminated them.

Which is exactly why Dan would prefer to concentrate on this aspect.

Camoron says:
You are not a scientist, you just play one on your blog

My qualifications are stated on my blog in the 'about me' section. I have nothing to hide, unlike some high profile climate scientists.

Anyone that knows anything about the scandal knows how Rog and his buddies have totally distorted everything and they know how to take advantage of people that are less educated on the subject and the people that do know the subject simply don't have the time to deal with it.

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 18:22:25 MDT.

The full unedited archive of the emails is freely available from many places on the net. Anyone who wants to form their own judgement concerning the actions and attitudes of the people involved in the climategate scandal can download and read them.

You did not post unedited emails. You posted an editorial. I have read many of the unedited emails and people should know how corrupt what you posted is.

Edited by wildlife on 08/04/2012 18:27:32 MDT.

McFail asks:
Why don't you just start doing personal house calls and cram it down people throats in person so they can experience the joys of your body odors as well?

Lol. Maybe you caught a whiff of your armpit as you reached to wipe the spittle off your monitor.

> That claim rests on a 'survey' of 10,000 people whittled down to 67 respondents. It's a joke.

That's not what the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says. A couple of their points from the abstract are:

*) anthropogenic climate change (ACC)

*) Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

*) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

=====

The other thing is that I noticed you pushing climategate a few posts back -- that is a tired old dog that won't hunt. It has been investigated (8 times that I know of) and 100% of the investigations have found no scientific wrong-doing.

=====

Enough --- I do not plan to join this debate, because the discussion will never get anywhere.

Edited by blean on 08/04/2012 18:27:42 MDT.

I deleted my short comment here saying BPL should disallow Rog from posting unless BPL hires a full time blogger to balance Rog. I think the thread can be seen as educational and I believe it gives people the opportunity to do pointed research and learn about the subject.

Edited by wildlife on 08/05/2012 14:09:33 MDT.