It is, to Perry, belief versus belief, only Perry feels that his belief is more morally based (authoritarianism argued for Gods’ gift of dominion from Himself to Man for the earth [read: exploitation is allowable, and indeed is right]) than that of those he argues against. It really doesn’t matter what is being used: up is down, down is left, left is hubwards, all useful for making the emotional appeal. He can spout nonsense as long as you GROK it in your gut (reason don’t belong here, folks).

No I haven’t. I’ve said that increased CO2 will make a positive contribution towards warming, and that I don’t consider it that unlikely that it could have caused more than 50% of the warming between 1950 and 2000. That doesn’t mean that I say it did, or even that the contribution it makes is detectable against the natural background noise, or that you’re right about the mechanism.

It certainly doesn’t mean you’re right about the predictions of future warming, or that it would be a catastrophe, or even anything to worry about, or that we need do anything at all to avert.

There is this constant effort to conflate claims, to say that if you accept one point of the climate canon you must accept them all, or that if you reject one point you must reject them all. The predictions of doom and disaster do not follow from the basic physics. I understand the basic physics. I do not agree with the disaster predictions.

So please don’t say I’ve agreed with you, unless it’s your way of saying that you don’t believe in the oncoming climate apocalypse either.

“you have never, ever demonstrated that any of them are true: that the thoughts expressed therein were turned into deeds.”

That’s a very interesting answer in the context of the present conversation. A climate scientist says he made data up, that it’s going to cause databases to be corrupted, that precisely this attitude caused the already existing corruption, and that this is common practice where he works. Your answer is that because I haven’t proved 100% via (non-existent) independent sources that what he says is true, that we can ignore it. You don’t and won’t believe it. More than that, you have an absolutely unshakable conviction that it’s not.

Given the conversation about the fundamentalist intolerance for uncertainty on the previous page, that’s very interesting, don’t you think?

(As I’m sure you know, Harry pasted in output from the programs he wrote to do what he said he was going to do. I suppose you think he faked that, too.)

“Neither you nor anyone else has ever shown that, because no one can.”

Actually, the official enquiries could have, if they’d wanted to. If it wasn’t true, it would be trivial for them to prove it – just publish the software and its documentation. (In fact, they should have published it anyway.) They chose to leave the matter unexamined, however.

And thus we see the ultimate logic of climate science’s “proof” – you prevent anyone seeing the evidence that would allow them to test your claims, and then say that because nobody has any solid 100% proof that the claims are not true, we have to accept them without question.

Orwell would have been pleased to have thought that one up.

You’ve already admitted we are right about how human emissions of CO2 are causing a warming effect.

The rest is obfuscatory quibbling and your own arguments from authority, be they Galileo or “Harry.” Much as you ritualistically cut-n-paste from the CRU emails as though they were holy writ, you have never, ever demonstrated that any of them are true: that the thoughts expressed therein were turned into deeds. Neither you nor anyone else has ever shown that, because no one can. There is no evidence the emails are “right,” but the ritual litany of cut-n-pasting their doctrines is supposed to be authoritative enough in and of itself.

@9

What little I know of Galileo was that he successfully challenged the authorities of the day by conducting his own experiments, demonstrations, and observations which tested their claims. I don’t remember ever reading about him complaining about the authorities not sharing their data. I think there’s a lesson there.

That’s an illogical argument. John Baez ought to know better.

Its humor—one way of coping with crackpots.

But you forget that Galileo could not prove the Earth spun or moved in an orbit around the Sun. Foucault’s pendulum and Stellar parallax and aberration some 100 years later did that – Galileo did not even come close.

Furthermore Galileo bruised the pope’s ego by identifying his words with the simpleton in his ‘Two Worlds’, and demanded Scripture be re-interpreted on the basis of a hypothesis he could not prove.

It’s interesting to note you missed out Kepler, who was excommunicated from the Protestant church.

That may be, but it isn’t what I’m arguing about.

#5,

“Denying the data” looks rather more like this: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” That’s what we call denying sceptics the data.

We’ve got plenty more. Here’s another. “I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.” Or Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit. Or “p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…” Or “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

So much for the data.

#6,

That’s an illogical argument. John Baez ought to know better.

#7,

Of course one has to be *right*! So do *you*. And to be right, you need more than arguments from authority and weather anecdotes.

Sorry guys, but you also have to be *right*.