more on -er (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Mullins, Bill AMRDEC]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Well, I guess I respectfully disagree, at least as follows.

There is a controversy (it isn't fictitious or imagined), and has been
reported in mainstream press such as the NYT, The Wall Street Journal,
The Atlantic, and elsewhere.

The controversy, as I understand it, is that emails circulated by
members of the Climate Research Unit show that:

1.  Data which don't support Anthropogenic Global Warming have been
ignored or even suppressed.
2.  The climate models have artificial "fudge factors" inserted which
give unequal weights to data sets, such that trends of AGW are made more
prominent.
3.  Scientists colluded to ignore Freedom of Information Act-type
requests for data.
4.  Scientists purposefully failed to share data sets with others whose
views were contrary.
5.  "Peer Review" was done based on conclusions rather than data and
methods -- papers which ran contrary to conclusions of AGW weren't given
a fair hearing.  [This being the case, I don't think "groupthink" is an
unfair label.]
6.  Data sets which support AGW have been lost or destroyed, such that
it cannot be peer reviewed, and conclusions based on them may not be
examined.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of victor steinbok
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:53 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: more on -er (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
---------------
> --------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: more on -er (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> It's science as sausage making, but there is nothing in those emails
> that's supportive of the arguments of global-warming deniers (not the
> same kind of -er). But that has not stopped people from making wild
> accusations ranging from groupthink to stacking the deck to "crimes".
>
> VS-)
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Mullins, Bill AMRDEC
> <Bill.Mullins at us.army.mil> wrote:
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
-------------
> ----------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Mullins, Bill AMRDEC" <Bill.Mullins at US.ARMY.MIL>
> > Subject:      Re: more on -er (UNCLASSIFIED)
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > Caveats: NONE
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> >> Behalf Of victor steinbok
> >> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 12:21 AM
> >> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> >> Subject: Re: more on -er
> >>
> >>
> >> To take this in a somewhat different direction (tooting my own
horn,
> >> in a way, I suppose), I am wondering if anyone's picked up on the
> fact
> >> that the conservative blogosphere (and Fox News with it, of course)
> >> has dubbed the East Anglia email swipe as "climategate". What's
> >> interesting about it is that the controversy supposedly attached to
> >> this "-gate" is imagined, but that's not the first time a
fictitious
> >> controversy has received a "-gate" suffix.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Just curious -- In what way is the controversy "imagined" or
> > "fictitious"?
> > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> > Caveats: NONE
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org