more on -er (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sat Dec 5 13:37:47 UTC 2009

True but irrelevant statements about the overheated nature of controversy in
the public prints are still irrelevant, especially when the press is mostly
trying to smother rather than fan the flames, but I guess if there is such a
cornucopia of controversy-denying Web posting that one can easily grab a
handful, there is no controversy.  Meanwhile...
Michael Mann is under investigation at Penn State (http://snurl.com/tkg4j  -
Michael Mann first of climate change scientists to be investigated),
and has started (only now?!?!) posting his data on line
(http://snurl.com/tkgh3  - The Associated Press: UK climate scientist to
temporarily step down),
Phil Jones has been suspended as head of the East Anglia CRU pending an
investigation (http://snurl.com/tkg5c  - Climate research chief Phil Jones
stands down pending inquiry into leaked emails at East Anglia university |
Environment | The Guardian), and

Al Gore is babbling behind his security detail (http://snurl.com/tkg5w  - We
Are Change Chicago » Blog Archive » Al Gore confronted on ClimateGate in
Chicago) and canceling his lecture in Copenhagen (http://snurl.com/tkg88  -
Google Translate).
Nope.  No controversy here.  Just keep moving on.

Just as there are lots of Web items explaining why there is nothing there,
there are lots beginning to explain what is there.  (And for the record, the
EA-CRU docs were downloaded from a public server.  They may have been placed
there prematurely, in anticipation of an FOIA request, but they were not
stolen.  Whatever happened to the sanctity of the whistleblower?)  They show
that scientists at the center
(http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364) of the scientific
support for the IPCC's reports, which in turn is the strong pillar
supporting the the-scientific-consensus-is-settled meme, have suppressed,
alterd, and cherry picked data, faked results, and corrupted the peer-review
process to advance a political and financial agenda:
http://snurl.com/tkgi1  - Cube Antics | The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate
Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To,
http://snurl.com/tkgig  - Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data « JoNova,

http://snurl.com/tkgi5  - More on Climategate - Clive Crook, the Atlantic,
http://snurl.com/tkgie  - Climategate and credibility: an epistemic detour -
Clive Crook,, the Atlantic
http://snurl.com/tkgg4  - Climategate III: The Mystery of the Missing Data -
Megan McArdle, the Atlantic,
http://snurl.com/tkgg8  - Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its
issues « Watts Up With That?,
http://snurl.com/tkghc  - Climategate grows to include other research
institutions « Watts Up With That?).

I am sure that if I published recipes for "hot dogs" from an 1820 cookbook,
there would be no rush to antedate if I said that my notes on the title and
location of my source had been lost, stolen, strayed, or shredded.  And a
17C manuscript from the Vatican's archives declaring that "we have to get
rid of the moons of Jupiter" would be considered no small revelation.

Seán Fitzpatrick-er
ANTHROPOGENIC CONTINENTAL DRIFT:
For when Global Warming just isn't silly enough anymore.
http://www.logomachon.blogspot.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Wilton [mailto:dave at WILTON.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: more on -er (UNCLASSIFIED)

The "controversy" is pretty much a fabrication, or at least wholesale
distortion of minor disagreements and discrepancies that exist in any
scientific inquiry, by climate change deniers in collusion with the press
who want a juicy story to tell. We've seen a similar "controversy" reported
in the press over creationism/evolution. Just because the press calls
something a "controversy" doesn't mean that that a controversy actually
exists in any consequential degree. (There certainly is a political
controversy, but that doesn't mean there is scientific evidence to support
the political position of the climate-change deniers.)

At the root of it, and to bring the subject back to language, is the use of
words like "trick" and "hide" in casual emails among scientists, words that
never would be used in a formally published article, as evidence of some
kind of scientific conspiracy to hide the "truth" that human-generated
climate change is a fiction.

Here some good blog posts that aptly summarize/debunk the "controversy:"

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming
-emails-non-event/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/11/24/the-climategate-bu
rden-of-proof/

http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails

And the so-called "missing" data is not actually missing. It was deleted
from one server because of lack of space. The raw data still exists in many
other locations.

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
Mullins, Bill AMRDEC
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:42 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: more on -er (UNCLASSIFIED)

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

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