tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post288941539886630637..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Climate-GateAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3078595796853377282009-12-12T13:32:25.853-07:002009-12-12T13:32:25.853-07:00Oh, Eneasz, acting as if you have any standing on ...Oh, Eneasz, acting as if you have any standing on which to judge the ethics of another...it's almost cute. Almost.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66104037913540891002009-12-12T12:13:57.871-07:002009-12-12T12:13:57.871-07:00I look forward to many years of demonstrating your...<i>I look forward to many years of demonstrating your utter lack of integrity</i>.<br /><br />I'd almost say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but that implies that the pot and kettle are on equal footing. It's more apt to call this a case of the swine calling the swam filthy.<br /><br />Hopefully your future attempts at demonstrating something will rely more on facts and less on fantasy.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85068457272104938912009-12-11T22:48:42.165-07:002009-12-11T22:48:42.165-07:00"They have nothing to back up their claims. T..."They have nothing to back up their claims. Their campaign is NOTHING BUT a continuous attempt to distort and misrepresent the facts."<br /><br />What do you mean nothing? There are thousands of files available for the public to read.XXXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827007551114965940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67819373845495385802009-12-11T20:42:19.411-07:002009-12-11T20:42:19.411-07:00Mutual, Al. I look forward to many years of demon...Mutual, Al. I look forward to many years of demonstrating your utter lack of integrity.<br /><br />I only hope that, if you really believe that your message is one of such importance, you come to realize how heavily you have damaged yourself as its messenger with your repeated smear campaigns against decent people.Calvin Freiburgerhttp://rightcal.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35683427718485335822009-12-11T15:06:32.443-07:002009-12-11T15:06:32.443-07:00Calvin
Your disbelief is noted.
Of course, as yo...<b>Calvin</b><br /><br />Your disbelief is noted.<br /><br />Of course, as you can probably derive, I do not have much respect for your standards of evidence or with what has and has not been proved to you.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-2969441933620657592009-12-11T14:28:30.956-07:002009-12-11T14:28:30.956-07:00I merely assert now because I already have offered...I merely assert now because I already have offered my evidence as to your lies when you originally told them, both on my blog and in your comment threads.<br /><br />Taken individually, your conduct regarding the American Spectator's Melanie Phillips, Rep. Monique Davis, and Biblical passages on shellfish each demonstrate that you are not to be trusted. Taken together, they show a stunning pattern of dishonesty.<br /><br />You and your sycophantic regulars have defended your dishonesty in these cases, each time unconvincingly. We know this. Perhaps new readers don't, but I'm under no moral obligation to rehash territory you're already familiar with (anybody who's curious is free to search for the applicable names & terms at our blogs).<br /><br />You can say whatever you like about my comments here; I really don't care. I just want you to know why I don't believe you - because you have proven to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are not trustworthy.<br /><br />Make of it what you will. God bless.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-26842136633472977572009-12-11T13:41:38.287-07:002009-12-11T13:41:38.287-07:00Calvin
I hold that a legitimate accusation requir...<b>Calvin</b><br /><br />I hold that a legitimate accusation requires evidence to back it up. I have placed that evidence in each blog in which I make an accusation.<br /><br />You, on the other hand, seem to be content with simple assertions.<br /><br />Anybody who disputes my conclusions is free to examine the evidence and to challenge it.<br /><br />You wish to dispute the conclusions while totally ignoring the evidence that I have given.<br /><br />Anybody who wishes to is free to come to any blog posting and explain where I have gotten a fact wrong or drawn a wrong inference. Of course, it's not possible to do that when a person simply makes an assertion. They offer no facts or reasoning to look at.<br /><br />Yours is much like the behavior of a defense attorney who, after the prosecutor has presented his case, can find nothing better to do than to call the prosecuting attorney names while asserting the innocence of your client.<br /><br />You should try to address the evidence.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-45825195006441391362009-12-11T13:08:17.103-07:002009-12-11T13:08:17.103-07:00Oh, it appears to me that the good Captain & M...Oh, it appears to me that the good Captain & Mr. Doe will be taking a hard look at the scientific claims you're going to be making in the weeks and months to come, and I look forward to it. I'm also going to be researching some of the specifics I've as soon as time allows, but I don't need to be a climatologist to recognize underhanded conduct when I see it, explained in this roundup of links:<br /><br />http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/12/025088.php<br /><br />Nor is a PhD required to understand the fundamental immorality and illogic of the way you argue.<br /><br />Bottom line: It doesn't matter what the issue is; I know you well enough to know you'll lie about it to advance your personal beliefs.<br /><br />You make ignorant, slanderous claims about Scripture while admitting - even bragging! - that you don't bother to educate yourself about its context or actual meaning.<br /><br />You twist innocent statements in favor of religious freedom into manifestos for religious tyranny, fantasizing a would-be Inquisitionist under every bed.<br /><br />You have callously lied about the words of Melanie Phillips, Sarah Palin, Rep. Monique Davis, and God knows how many other people over the course of your long, pompous career.<br /><br />These, simply put, are things someone with good desires would do, so I have no reason to believe your Chicken-Little claims over global warming -- and many reasons not to.<br /><br />PS: I'm sure one of you rocket scientists will explain why this isn't as it seems either, but I kinda have a hard time freaking out over man's impact when the global warming alarmists pull crap like this:<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.htmlCalvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43223503764942480212009-12-11T09:49:21.597-07:002009-12-11T09:49:21.597-07:00John Doe
In this blog I am about to present case ...<b>John Doe</b><br /><br />In this blog I am about to present case after case of poor arguments that are repeatedly used in the global-warming-deceivers' literature. And, yet, you will continue to ignore them in preference to discussing manipulative distortions of a few emails.<br /><br />The point is that it is absurd to claim that they were trying to "hide" things in the sense that you are interpreting the word - as in "trying to conceal from the public the fact that the tree-ring data presented an anomaly that indicated a decline in temperature."<br /><br />That interpretation is absurd because this fact was already widely known and discussed in the professional scientific literature.<br /><br />If you want to accuse them of this dishonest form of hiding you must at least accuse them also of believing that what they were trying to hide was not already widely known. That, itself, is an absurdity that forces rejection of the original premise.<br /><br />An Excel program contains a feature for hiding and unhiding columns. I have a lot of emails where I talk about hiding and unhiding columns in order to bet a cleaner page when printed. I "hide" and "unhide" columns daily as a part of my job. Emails to that effect does not prove that I am engaged in a great conspiracy to cover up any facts.<br /><br />In order to prove that they were using the term "hide" in a malicious sense you need to explain what secret they were trying to keep. The tree-ring data was known and discussed in the scientific literature so maliciously "hiding" that would have been stupid and pointless.<br /><br />There was nothing in these emails that was not also in the peer-reviewed literature.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27273129130603556572009-12-11T09:45:03.962-07:002009-12-11T09:45:03.962-07:00It would appear that there is an appeal to make al...It would appear that there is an appeal to make all scientific activities purer than one could ever find in a church. Maybe those who have "hidden the truth" learned how to do it from the Catholic Church or the ass-hats at Fox News. Could it be that the same critics oppose vaccinations, birth control and gay marriage?antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21476654992484200472009-12-11T09:26:26.152-07:002009-12-11T09:26:26.152-07:00Alonzo, you remind me of Bagdad Joe. They weren...Alonzo, you remind me of Bagdad Joe. They weren't really trying to hide the truth about the tree rings, but if they were, it was ok, since the tree rings were wrong anyway. And they weren't really trying to keep skeptics from publishing their work, but if they were, it's all right, because the skeptics are bad people any way. Yeah, right. <br /><br />Your excuse about hiding the tree ring proxy data is lame. I get it that the tree ring data does not jive with the measured temperatures. <br /><br />But the scientifically sound approach, once it was discovered that the tree rings did not jive with the observed actual temperatures, would be to reevaluate then how accurate tree rings are in judging past temperatures, back when there was no human recording the actual temperatures. However, the "scientists" instead tried to hide what the tree ring data indicated. Real "scientists" don't run from the facts, they find a way to explain them, or they adjust their original premise (in this case, that one can tell past unrecorded temperatures from tree rings). And it isn't a valid defense to argue that the information got out any way, so their attempts to hide the info was unsuccessful. Do you really want scientists who even consider attempting to hide facts? Wouldn't that just encourage more skeptics? <br /><br />People will begin to say: "We can't trust them because they hide facts from us." You WANT people to trust your scientists, don't you? Seems to me the prudent thing to do would be to show great outrage and demand that these bad apples be fired immediately. They've harmed your cause. And you are harming your cause by these lame attempts to defend the inexcusable.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88658146062057687912009-12-11T08:44:03.560-07:002009-12-11T08:44:03.560-07:00Calvin
This is an ethics blog and, as such, virtu...<b>Calvin</b><br /><br />This is an ethics blog and, as such, virtually every post I write has to do with the making and defending of moral judgments.<br /><br />There is nothing new in what I am doing, or my form of argument.<br /><br />I notice that you have not addressed any of my evidence. You have only attacked the conclusions without regard to the reasoning behind them.<br /><br />If the conclusions are flawed, then perhaps you can show where the arguments leading up to them went astray.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6760440705222384752009-12-11T08:27:49.020-07:002009-12-11T08:27:49.020-07:00Calvin:
Maybe Alonzo is . . . he may be having th...Calvin:<br /><br />Maybe Alonzo is . . . he may be having the nervous breakdown so he can visit you in the nut house!antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-89768776868216659152009-12-11T08:10:11.974-07:002009-12-11T08:10:11.974-07:00"Worst people in the world."
"This..."Worst people in the world."<br /><br />"This tells me what type of person you are."<br /><br />Anybody else think Alonzo might be on the verge of a nervous breakdown?Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-16298099727007062932009-12-11T05:35:36.309-07:002009-12-11T05:35:36.309-07:00XXX
If these things are concerning to you, then w...<b>XXX</b><br /><br />If these things are concerning to you, then what you are virtually guaranteed to find in the emails of the global warming deniers should absolutely floor you.<br /><br />They have nothing to back up their claims. Their campaign is NOTHING BUT a continuous attempt to distort and misrepresent the facts. My posts to come will take a huge set of the most common denialist claims and show the manipulations and distortions behind them.<br /><br />Yet, this, and the fact that these distortions are being used to convince people to take actions that risk the destruction of whole cities and countries and the suffering of whole populations, does not seem to concern you.<br /><br />This tells me what type of person you are.<br /><br />Even these emails are turning out to be yet another campaign of distortions.<br /><br />The term 'trick', for example, has a clear meaning even in common language as a clever way of accomplishing something. You might hear a person say, "There's a trick to getting that door open," or "Let me show you a trick for keeping the pie crust from tearing as you put it in the pan."<br /><br />This does not imply fraud.<br /><br />In fact, if you were to look at professional peer-reviewed scientific papers, you will see the term "trick" all over the place, having this meaning.<br /><br />However, global-warming deniers, eager to practice their art of deception people to do things that risk the destruction of whole cities are more than eager to present the term 'trick' to mean 'an act of fraud or deception.'<br /><br />And this comment about 'hide the decline'?<br /><br />The decline they are talking about is the decline in the tree-ring proxy for global temperatures. And if they are trying to hide this, they are doing a very poor job. The fact that the tree-ring proxy shows a decline in global temperatures has been widely reported in the scientific literature. But it is an anomaly, that is at odds with every other form of temperature measurement, including satellite and direct temperature measurements.<br /><br />Here, too, the anti-global-warming deceivers, unconcerned about the fact that they are manipulating people into actions that risk the destruction of whole cities, misrepresent this as 'hiding the decline in the global temperatures'.<br /><br />There might actually be signs of wrong-doing in those emails. Yet, nothing at this point can hide the fact that in reporting that has been done to date, the anti-global-warming deceivers have once again put their art of deception and manipulation to work, at the potential cost of whole cities.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74050335032252784812009-12-10T23:34:27.699-07:002009-12-10T23:34:27.699-07:00This is really concerning
"I do not need to ...This is really concerning<br /><br />"I do not need to claim, nor would I even try to claim, that every person working on climate change must have perfect moral virtue in order for the science to be accurate."<br /><br />Sure, the scientists do not need to have *perfect* moral virtue (whatever the criteria is to be considered perfect), but does that mean we should accept any scientist with no moral/ethic/standard what so ever?<br /><br />At least the scientists that receive public funding must be trusted, right?<br /><br />These emails really damage that trust in those scientists.<br /><br />This is not about the science behind AGW, although there may be implications. This is about how the scientific community handle such scandal.XXXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827007551114965940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49773004068349102322009-12-10T23:27:05.784-07:002009-12-10T23:27:05.784-07:00Those emails aren't private emails. They are C...Those emails aren't private emails. They are CRU/UEA emails. Staffs had been warned that the emails would be released to the public on FOI so they must be take this into consideration.<br /><br />Secondly, the emails are in the context of research funded by the government. So the context is different than let's say your Gmail account.<br /><br />The person who leaked/hacked the emails will no doubt be taken to court if/when caught.<br /><br />Seems like those scientists did not understand, that when you delete emails, they could still exist in the email server. <br /><br />And even if they could access the email server to delete the emails, there would still be lots of backup tapes somewhere safe.<br /><br />Big organizations don't lose staffs emails ... simple as that.XXXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827007551114965940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82413988994427091182009-12-10T12:50:15.844-07:002009-12-10T12:50:15.844-07:00Ok Zo, I'll bite. Yes, please do check my e-ma...Ok Zo, I'll bite. Yes, please do check my e-mails. I'm a lawyer. There is nothing there were I have tried to lie and hide the truth and prevent those with opposing views from having their views published. And never have I destroyed evidence. <br /><br />If you are correct on this issue or any other, by all means, I want to be pursuaded. If you are correct, why not be above-board and let the whole world see how you arrived at your conclusions? <br /><br />The "scientists" of climate gate acted neither scientifically, nor as though they believed that they had truth on their side. Americans are not stupid. They can tell true arguments from false, if both are allowed to co-exist. It's the covering up, and acting as though they had something to hide, that has done so much damage to the global warming argument. <br /><br />I see that the revelation of what they have done has upset you, but the reason you are upset is because you believe those "scientists" are on the correct side, but that their emails have done a great disservice to the side of the argument that you believe is true. Rather than trying to pooh pooh the great harm that they have done, you ought to just man up and admit that they dealt a major blow to your sides' case, and move on to some other topic. You would have more credibility by just admitting that you can't win the argument trying to justify what they have done. Stick to arguing strong areas; fighting on that battlefield is a losing proposition. <br /><br />p.s. you know nothing of my "moral character." I just thought it was humorous you trying to win a none-winnable debate, and getting deeper and deeper into a hole. I still do. Come to think of it, if you believe that reflects somehow on my moral character, knock yourself out. Make judgments about me.John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73860584299285651212009-12-09T18:48:19.782-07:002009-12-09T18:48:19.782-07:00This is about al gore and ban-ki-moon stating open...This is about al gore and ban-ki-moon stating openly that this is about one world governance. This is about having a global non elected coorperate conglomerate tax you on anything and everything you do, your travel, the food you eat (cows fart methane, they'll tax the farmers for that too) every mammal on the planet expells carbon dioxide, every green thing consumes it. It's plant food. Three words. READ THE TREATY!! Stop being socially driven bleeding heart idiots and WAKE UP! The treaty clearly states there will be taxes imposed on travel, gas, flying, money transfers, and a new system of carbon credit derivitives that you will be forced to buy to offset your carbon footprint will be forced on you! Copenhagen will solve nothing, you can keep polluting all you want as long as you buy market driven carbon derivitives to "offset" your breathing. But what if your local power plant can't afford the extra credits? What if you can't? Well the treaty also calls for an "administrative body to ensure complyance" as stated under their structure for this new world government. So you will be without power and transportation because of it. This has nothing to do with the earth! They are openly trying to rob you blind and controll every aspect of your life and you think it's about co2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32919341022737323332009-12-09T16:59:56.060-07:002009-12-09T16:59:56.060-07:00See here.<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php" rel="nofollow">See here.</a>Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11236034748715023402009-12-09T16:54:49.316-07:002009-12-09T16:54:49.316-07:00"I know that the arguments of the deniers sig..."I know that the arguments of the deniers significantly misrepresent the science of global warming and can demonstrate it."<br /><br />Case in point: the "decline" that they were seeking to "hide" was a period of proxy tree ring data which is known to be unreliable. In other words, the "trike" was a method to prevent bad data from corrupting the rest.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-52975988622098570822009-12-09T13:53:05.902-07:002009-12-09T13:53:05.902-07:00Captain Spaulding:
For all the crap I have heard ...<b>Captain Spaulding</b>:<br /><br />For all the crap I have heard over the past few years I will attest that in a post several months ago, Alonzo provided the best explanation for global warming I have heard in the public arena . . . one that even a Grade One student was able to comprehend. <br /><br />The problem, as I see it, is that all the debaters are so busy getting all their "ducks in a row" that they don't know it will soon be hunting season when all of the wrong "experts" will be swimming for higher ground which will be defended by us "other guys" who will just let you drown. <br /><br />The question your descendants will ask, if you have any, is "Why didn't you do the right thing in the war on global warming? Why did you spend all of your effort in stupid intellectual arguments?"antonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909850387414677663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85069536550415132652009-12-09T13:33:34.651-07:002009-12-09T13:33:34.651-07:00John Doe
An impressive tactic.
Without addressin...<b>John Doe</b><br /><br />An impressive tactic.<br /><br />Without addressing any of the reasons for concern, declare victory and continue to do harm.<br /><br />It definitely shows your moral character.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43042402522184091902009-12-09T13:06:34.210-07:002009-12-09T13:06:34.210-07:00Please GOD [or nature or whatever for you atheists...Please GOD [or nature or whatever for you atheists], let Alphonzo know that he is getting utterly crushed y Captain Spalding, and let him. Just. Stop.<br /><br />It's the intellectual equivalent to a fight between Mike Tyson in his prime versus Liberace. <br /><br />I'm staying out of the discussion, and just trying to do Al a favor. When you are hopelessly outmatched, call the other guy a racist or something and stop trying to debate him. It's the liberal thing to do!John Doehttp://maaadddog.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35555494621722523682009-12-09T12:55:16.877-07:002009-12-09T12:55:16.877-07:00If we want to help the planet then we need to stop...If we want to help the planet then we need to stop having so many babies. Simple. If we dont mother nature will do it for us through pain and suffering. Preventing deforestation wouldnt do any harm either. They should stop blinding people with statistics as it makes them skeptical. Issue practical measures which are easy to understand and have a significant outcome in the future.Beastinblackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001553829217827228noreply@blogger.com