jedimaster - "What you don't seem to understand, rpg, is that scientists delight in disagreeing with each other. Finding that somebody got their sums wrong is as exciting as coming up with a new sum, so to speak. Only they are courteous about it.

There is a big difference between a robust debate and trading insults. I hope that you can comprehend the difference"

Ah yes, I did read the CRU emails - did you?

If you did, I can only imagine you cringing now.

I'm not impressed by whitewashes etc .. did you read the emails, did you actually see what these "scientists" said, robust debate, I think not.

Did they "delight in disagreeing with each other", of course they didn't as you do not .. you only wish to pour scorn.

TCM “Stern, what are your credentials that you can pass it off as 'pseudo-science'? Or is that just 'hubris' on your behalf?”

I hold a couple of professional qualifications which have trained me in the skill of reading behind the spin and looking for the footprints of real evidence which distinguish probable result from bulltish.

Please declare the credentials you hold to allow you to define me as a “dogmatic denialist” and to think you are competent to challenge my view?

One observation is it is an extremely small mind which cannot accept that people, being a most diverse species, will hold alternate views on any and every given topic…

TCM you are simply demonstrating such lack of understanding.

A character shortfall which disqualifies you from deciding, for the rest of us, who is a denialist and who is a sceptic.

HoHum “Such has always been the imperative of the Western "cultural" script.”

Ok – got an alternative –

And before you vomit forth with some Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite drivel…

I mean an alternative which has some likelyhood of working,

rather than the failed theories of collectivists which have a 100% record of complete failure.

Lilsam “Sceptics assert that believers should not be given any credence,”

Actually I see the skeptics as being open minded and open to debate.

As always, it is the zealots (in this case) of climate change who are the ones who vilify skeptics as “deniers” want t shut down discussion and demand that opposition to their view must be censored..

For instance mikk thinks “To deny it is to blind ones self in a stupid and selfish display of dogmatic hubris and ignorant inhumanity.’

But your hysterical dummy-spit will never stop me from expressing commonsense, mikk…. And as rpg suggested

“Bring on the inquisition Mikk, we can all see you'd just love to!”

Torture the Cathars and burn the Huguenots…….. again

Leith…” Gillard is going to pick 150 people…”

yes and she will cherry pick 1% of suggestions like they did last time and with the Henry report…..

The appeasement of spin and cover-up of incompetence

rpg

I have read enough of the CRU emails to understand that they are what they were intended to be- private.

A significant aspect of the internet is the extent that it has mediated a merging of the public and private worlds of people.

I worked in a university at the time of the development of the internet, then later in the public service as it became commonplace.

There were furious debates (one led by John Maddox, the editor of Nature) about the way the internet was being used to "publish" results. He saw its use eroding scientific standards, as "un-refereed" information and analysis was being given widespread currency. Maddox saw the distinction between "private" knowledge- which, in most of us is a disorganised, incomplete mixture of data and emotions- and "public" knowledge, which has these artefacts removed. Only this public knowledge can give us a firm foundation to build our actions upon.

When the internet became commonplace, it enabled many people in organisations to efficiently discuss work-in-progress that previously had been done face-to-face, acknowledging the uncertain status of the data and views. There was widespread consternation when people found that their nascent and confidential views had been recorded permanently and were being monitored and subpoenaed to be used against them. This was seen by many, at the time, as a gross betrayal of trust by organisations. However, times have moved on and many people in organisations are more circumspect about how they commit their views to print.

Except that the rise of "social media" has enabled virtually everyone on the planet to vent their personal feelings, beliefs and sometimes information- most of it unmoderated and un-edited.

Scientists, in their private lives are probably no more virtuous than anyone else. The difference is that in public they have extra-ordinarily high standards as to the language they use and the certainty they ascribe to their findings.

Either - use the ill-gotten hacked emails to mount a conspiracy to defraud case against the CRU scientists, or turn over the criminal hacker who has betrayed the trust of these scientists- and ordinary citizens.

Of course the elephant in the room is the possibility that the pro-warming scientists are just plain wrong. The problem with attacking those who have no idea (sceptics) is that the pro-warming lobby make no friends and are classified as rat bags or loonies.

The Internet can provide a home to extreme positions from both sides as they hide in anonimity.

Well said Jedimaster.

First, find and prosecute the clear criminal, the hacker.

As part of his sentencing, he can reveal the exact path of his findings. This can no doubt be expanded upon by investigators and be used to ascertain the totality more thoruoghly.

In the meantime, I am much more confident of the good intent of climate scientists than I am of the objectors. "she'll be right" is so confidence raising.

Rusty

jedimaster, if you are happy with the corruption of the CRU folks even after reading the emails where they collude and plot to skew results and hide their data, then you are the same as they are.

The fact that you gloat over it, to me means you are so far down the AGW believer track, that you have no credibility.

You are actually a denier of justice.

These people are publicly funded, their results and data have world effect - it is NOT private.

It's the same as any data or emails in the workplace, they are not private.

There's no point conversing with you further, as you are clearly adamant that CRU are innocent, regardless of their own admissions in the emails.

Yes, there were whitewashed, by their own buddies in the UK recently - but in time, like Lindy Chamberlain or any others, there is always justice eventually when these things get revisited.

I wonder who did release the emails into the wild, you see I suspect it was Phil Jones himself, he sure doesn't look good does he - he's not gloating, he looks like a man whose conscience is burning.

Good luck living with your view of the world, I will not bother with you again. You certainly are not open to skepticism, you are clearly and adamant believer in the AGW religion.